Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A method to evaluate quality of modelling languages based on the Zachman reference taxonomy

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The model-driven engineering (MDE) paradigm promotes the use of conceptual models in information systems (IS) engineering and research. As engineering products, conceptual models must be of high quality, which applies to both conceptual models and the modelling language used to build them. Quality is a growing concern in the MDE field; however, studies such as Giraldo, F.D. et al. Software Quality Journal, pp. 1–66 (2016b) and Goulão, M. et al. Software Quality Journal, pp. 1–33 (2016) demonstrate the divergence in several approaches that are proposed for addressing this topic. Due to the many challenges, divergences, and trends for quality assessment and assurance in the MDE context, one way to perform a quality evaluation process is to use an approach where the applicability and goals of modelling languages (and artifacts) can be compared with respect to the essential principles of the development of IS. We propose using principles from an IS architecture reference (i.e., the Zachman framework) as a taxonomy that is applied on the modelling languages used in information system development in order to perform analytic procedures. We also demonstrate that this taxonomy can be considered as a formal context for the application of the formal concept analysis (FCA) method. This paper derives formal, methodological, and technological requirements for a modelling language quality evaluation method (MMQEF) with the potential to tackle some of the open MDE quality challenges. In addition, a tool that operationalizes the taxonomic evaluation procedure and the FCA analytic method is also presented. In this work, we discuss how this taxonomy supports analytics that are in modelling languages for quality purposes through its management of the semantics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These refer to the specific elements that appear with the use of a modelling language, according to the definition presented in Object and Reference Model Subcommittee of the Architecture Board(2005).

  2. https://eclipse.org/modeling/

  3. http://conexp.sourceforge.net/

  4. http://toscanaj.sourceforge.net/

  5. Specifications available at http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5/(UML), and http://www.omg.org/bpmn/index.htm(BPMN).

  6. Tool available at http://www.integranova.com/.

References

  • Aagesen, G., & Krogstie, J. (2015). BPMN 2.0 for modeling business processes, (pp. 219–250). Heidelberg: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • da Silva, A.R. (2015). Model-driven engineering: a survey supported by the unified conceptual model. Computer Languages, Systems & Structures, 43, 139–155.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • de Graaf, K., Liang, P., Tang, A., van Hage, W., van Vliet, H. (2014). An exploratory study on ontology engineering for software architecture documentation. Computers in Industry, 65(7), 1053–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Vara, J.L., Díaz, J.S., Pastor, O. (2007). Integración de un entorno de producción automática de software en un marco de alineamiento estratégico (in Spanish). In Anais do WER07 - workshop em engenharia de requisitos, Toronto, Canada, May 17-18, 2007 (pp. 68–79).

  • Espańa, S., González, A., Pastor, Ó. (2009). Communication analysis: a requirements engineering method for information systems, (pp. 530–545). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • España, S., Ruiz, M., González, A. (1). Systematic derivation of conceptual models from requirements models: a controlled experiment. In 2012 6th international conference on research challenges in information science (RCIS).

  • España Cubillo, S. (2012). Methodological integration of communication analysis into a model-driven software development framework. PhD thesis.

  • Frankel, D.S., Harmon, P., Mukerji, J., Odell, J., Owen, M., Rivitt, P., Rosen, M., Soley, R.M. (2003). The Zachman Framework and the OMG’s model driven architecture.

  • Ganter, B., & Wille, R. (1999). Concept lattices of contexts, (pp. 17–61). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, B., & Raban, R. (1999). Context management in modeling information systems (is). Information and Software Technology, 41(14), 957–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giraldo, F.D., España, S., Pastor, O. (2016a). Evidences of the mismatch between industry and academy on modelling language quality evaluation. CoRR, arXiv:1606.02025.

  • Giraldo, F.D., España, S., Pastor, Ó. , Giraldo, W.J. (2016b). Considerations about quality in model-driven engineering. Software Quality Journal, pp. 1–66.

  • González, A., España, S., Ruiz, M., Pastor, Ó. (2011). Systematic Derivation of Class Diagrams from Communication-Oriented Business Process Models, pages 246–260 Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Heidelberg: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulão, M., Amaral, V., Mernik, M. (2016). Quality in model-driven engineering: a tertiary study. Software Quality Journal, pp. 1–33.

  • Guarino, N., & Welty, C.A. (2000). A formal ontology of properties. In Proceedings of the 12th European workshop on knowledge acquisition, modeling and management, EKAW ’00 (pp. 97–112). London: Springer.

  • Henderson-Sellers, B., & Gonzalez-Perez, C. (2010). Granularity in conceptual modelling: application to metamodels. In Parsons, J., Saeki, M., Shoval, P., Woo, C., Wand, Y. (Eds.) Conceptual modeling - ER 2010, volume 6412 of lecture notes in computer science (pp. 219–232). Berlin: Springer.

  • ISO/IEC/IEEE. (2011). Iso/iec/ieee systems and software engineering – architecture description. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011(E) (Revision of ISO/IEC 42010:2007 and IEEE Std 1471-2000), pp. 1–46.

  • Kingston, J. (2008). Multi-perspective ontologies: resolving common ontology development problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(1), 541–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingston, J., & Macintosh, A. (2000). Knowledge management through multi-perspective modelling: representing and distributing organizational memory. Knowledge-Based Systems, 13(2-3), 121–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krogstie, J. (2012). Quality of models, (pp. 205–247). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruchten, P. (2000). The rational unified process: an introduction, 2nd. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laware, G., & Kowalkowski, F. (2005). The business value of taxonomies and ontologies for web & knowledge management practices. pp. 41–47. cited By 0.

  • Martin, R., & Robertson, E.L. (1999). Formalization of multi-level zachman frameworks (technical report no. 522). Technical report, Computer Science Department, Indiana University.

  • Mohagheghi, P., Dehlen, V., Neple, T. (2009). Definitions and approaches to model quality in model-based software development - a review of literature. Information and Software Technology, 51(12), 1646–1669. Quality of {UML} Models.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molina, A.I., Giraldo, W.J., Ortega, M., Redondo, M.A., Collazos, C.A. (2014). Model-driven development of interactive groupware systems: integration into the software development process. Science of Computer Programming, 89(Part C(0)), 320–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody, D. (2009). The physics of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 35(6), 756–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muntermann, J., Nickerson, R., Varshney, U. (2015). Towards the development of a taxonomic theory. In Proceedings of the Twenty-first Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), Puerto Rico, 2015, AMCIS’15. AIS Electtronic Library (AISeL).

  • Noran, O. (2003). An analysis of the zachman framework for enterprise architecture from the {GERAM} perspective. Annual Reviews in Control, 27(2), 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Object and Reference Model Subcommittee of the Architecture Board. (2005). A Proposal for an MDA Foundation Model ormsc/05-04-01. Technical report, Object Management Group.

  • Olivé, A. (2001). Taxonomies and derivation rules in conceptual modeling. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE ’01 (pp. 417–432). London: Springer.

  • OMG. (2003). Mda guide version 1.0.1.

  • OMG. (2014). MDA Guide revision 2.0.

  • Pastor, Ó., & España, S. (2012). Full model-driven practice: from requirements to code generation, (pp. 701–702). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pastor, O., Insfrán, E., Pelechano, V., Romero, J., Merseguer, J. (2013). OO-METHOD: an OO software production environment combining conventional and formal methods, (pp. 139–152). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pastor, O., & Molina, J.C. (2007). Model-driven architecture in practice: a software production environment based on conceptual modeling. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priss, U. (2006). Formal concept analysis in information science. Annual Rev. Info. Sci & Technol., 40(1), 521–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, J., Jaen, J., Vallecillo, A. (2009). Realizing correspondences in multi-viewpoint specifications. In Enterprise distributed object computing conference, 2009. EDOC ’09. IEEE International (pp. 163–172).

  • Rueda, U., España, S., Ruiz, M. (2015). GREAT Process modeller user manual. CoRR, arXiv:1502.07693.

  • Shuman, E.A. (2010). Understanding executable architectures through an examination of language model elements. In Proceedings of the 2010 summer computer simulation conference, SCSC ’10 (pp. 483–497). San Diego: Society for Computer Simulation International.

  • Siau, K., & Rossi, M. (1998). Evaluation of information modeling methods - a review. In HICSS (5) (pp. 314–322).

  • Smith, R. (2013). On the value of a taxonomy in modeling. In Tolk, A. (Ed.) Ontology, epistemology, and teleology for modeling and simulation, volume 44 of intelligent systems reference library (pp. 241–254). Berlin: Springer.

  • Sowa, J.F., & Zachman, J.A. (1992). Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 31(3), 590–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, A., Han, J., Chen, P. (2004). A comparative analysis of architecture frameworks. In 2004 11th Asia-pacific software engineering conference (pp. 640–647).

  • Wegmann, A., Kotsalainen, A., Matthey, L., Regev, G., Giannattasio, A. (2008). Augmenting the zachman enterprise architecture framework with a systemic conceptualization. In Proceedings of the 2008 12th international IEEE enterprise distributed object computing conference, EDOC ’08 (pp. 3–13). Washington: IEEE Computer Society.

  • Welty, C., & Guarino, N. (2001). Supporting ontological analysis of taxonomic relationships. Data Knowledge Engineering, 39(1), 51–74.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, K.E. (1993). A first course in formal concept analysis. StatSoft, 93, 429–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zachman, J.A. (1987). A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26(3), 276–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, L., Letsholo, K., Chioasca, E.-V., Sampaio, S., Sampaio, P. (2012). Can business process modeling bridge the gap between business and information systems?. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC ’12 (pp. 1723–1724). New York: ACM.

Download references

Acknowledgements

F.G. would like to thank COLCIENCIAS (Colombia) for funding this work through the COLCIENCIAS Grant call 512-2010. This work has been supported by the Generalitat Valenciana Project IDEO (PROMETEOII/2014/039), the European Commission FP7 Project CaaS (611351), and ERDF structural funds. F.G. would to thank César A. Cataño and Juan D. Fernández for their support in the implementation of EMAT tool.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SINFOCI Research Group, University of Quindío, Cra 15 Calle 12N, Armenia, 630004, Colombia

    Fáber D. Giraldo & William J. Giraldo

  2. Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

    Sergio España

  3. PROS Research Centre, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera S/N, Valencia, 46022, Spain

    Fáber D. Giraldo & Óscar Pastor

  4. Department of Computer and Information Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    John Krogstie

Authors
  1. Fáber D. Giraldo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sergio España
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William J. Giraldo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Óscar Pastor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John Krogstie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fáber D. Giraldo.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giraldo, F.D., España, S., Giraldo, W.J. et al. A method to evaluate quality of modelling languages based on the Zachman reference taxonomy. Software Qual J 27, 1239–1269 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-018-9434-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-018-9434-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation