Advertisement

Informatik-Spektrum

, Volume 31, Issue 5, pp 394–407 | Cite as

Model-Driven Development

  • Oscar Pastor
  • Sergio España
  • José Ignacio Panach
  • Nathalie Aquino
HAUPTBEITRAG MODELLIERUNG

Abstract

The model-driven architecture (MDA) paradigm is well-known and widely used in the field of model-based software development. However, there are still some issues that are problematic and that need to be dealt with carefully. In this paper we present a metaphor that explains how MDA grows in complexity as problems faced become more difficult or “wicked”, and how a method designed to be powerful, flexible and MDA-compliant can eventually become, in effect, a “jigsaw puzzle”. This jigsaw puzzle is not merely the result of having a collection of methodological “pieces” with routes across them, but also arises as a result of the criteria underlying the MDA abstraction layers. We compare MDA to other research fields such as human-computer interaction, model management and method engineering, and we use as an example the OO-Method, a software development method based on MDA-compliant model transformations. We focus on a methodological piece that is conceived to allow the specification of interaction requirements by means of interface sketches. These sketches are supported by a task model that serves as a sound basis for formalisation and allows the application of model transformation in order to obtain subsequent models. A case study illustrates the requirements capture method together with the software development process defined by the OO-Method. The whole process presented in the case study represents one of the possible routes that can be followed when developing a software system with the OO-Method.

Keywords

Requirement Engineering Abstraction Level Software Development Process Wicked Problem Jigsaw Puzzle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ågerfalk PJ, Fitzgerald B (2006) Exploring the concept of method rationale: A conceptual tool for method tailoring. In: Siau K (ed) Advanced Topics in Database Research, vol 5. Idea Group, Hershey, PAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ågerfalk PJ, Ralyté J (2006) Situational requirements engineering processes: reflecting on method engineering and requirements practice. Software process: improvement and practice. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bailey BP, Konstan JA (2003) Are Informal Tools Better? Comparing DEMAIS, Pencil and Paper, and Authorware for Early Multimedia Design. Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI’2003. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernstein PA (2003) Applying Model Management to Classical Meta Data Problems. In: Proceedings of Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research (CIDR) 2003Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brinkkemper S (1996) Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Inf Softw Technol 38:275–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brinkkemper S, Saeki M, Harmsen F (1999) Metamodelling based assembly techniques for situational method engineering. Inf Syst 24(3):209–228, doi: 10.1016/S0306-4379(99)00016-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caetano A, Goulart N, Fonseca M, Jorge J (2002) JavaSketchIt: Issues in Sketching the Look of User Interfaces. AAAI Spring Symposium. Sketch understanding. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, pp 9–14Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Care Technologies (2007) http://www.care-t.com. Accessed July 2007Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coyette A, Vanderdonckt J (2005) A Sketching Tool for Designing Anyuser, Anyplatform, Anywhere User Interfaces. INTERACT 2005, LNCS 3585. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 550–564Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    DeLaVara JL, Sánchez J (2007) Business process-driven requirements engineering: a goal-based approach. In: 8th Workshop on Business Process Modeling, Development, and Support (BPMDS’07), CAiSE’07, Trondheim, Norway (in press)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Díaz I, Losavio F, Matteo A, Pastor O (2003) A Specification Pattern for Use Cases. Inf Manage J (Elsevier Science B.V.) 41:961–975Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    España S, Pederiva I, Panach JI (2007) Integrating Model-Based and Task-Based Approaches to User Interface Generation. In: Calvary, Pribeanu C, Santucci G, Vanderdonckt J (eds) Computer-Aided Design of User Interfaces VI. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 255–263Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fitzgerald G (1991) Validating new information systems techniques: a retrospective analysis. In: Nissen HE, Klein HK, Hirschheim R (eds) Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp 657–672Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fons J, Valderas P, Albert M, Pastor O (2003) Development of Web Applications from Web Enhanced Conceptual Schemas. ER 2003, LNCS. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 232–245Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta D, Prakash N (2001) Engineering methods from method requirements specifications. Requirements Engineering 6(3):135–160, doi: 10.1007/s007660170001zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO/IEC 9126-1 (2001) Software engineering. Product quality 1: Quality modelGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karlsson F, Ågerfalk PJ (2004) Method configuration: Adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets. Inf Softw Technol 46(9):619–633, doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2003.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karlsson F, Wistrand K (2006) Combining method engineering with activity theory: Theoretical grounding of the method component concept. Eur J Inf Syst 15(1):82–90, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Landay J, Myers BA (2001) Sketching Interfaces: Toward More Human Interface Design. IEEE Comput 34:56–64Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lyytinen K, Welke R (1999) Guest editorial: Special issue on meta-modelling and methodology engineering. Inf Syst 24(2):67–69, doi: 10.1016/S0306-4379(99)00005-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    MDA (2007) http://www.omg.org/mda. Accessed July/June 2007/2008Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mirbel I, Ralyté J (2006) Situational method engineering: Combining assembly-based and roadmap-driven approaches. Requirements Eng 11(1):58–78, doi: 10.1007/s00766-005-0019-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Molina P (2003) User interface specification: from requirements to automatic generation. PhD Thesis, DSIC, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia (in Spanish)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morgan T (2002) Business Rules and Information Systems: Aligning IT with Business Goals. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Newman MW, Lin J, Hong JI, Landay JA (2003) DENIM: An Informal Web Site Design Tool Inspired by Observations of Practice. Human Comput Inter 18:259–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pastor O, González A, España S (2007) Conceptual alignment of software production methods. In: Krogstie J, Opdahl A, Brinkkemper S (eds) Conceptual modelling in information systems engineering. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pastor Ó, Insfrán E, et al. (1997) OO-Method: An OO Software Production Environment Combining Conventional and Formal Methods. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 9th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’97), Barcelona, Spain. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Paternò F, Mancini C, et al. (1997) ConcurTaskTrees: A Diagrammatic Notation for Specifying Task Models. In: Proceedings of the IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 362–369Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pederiva I, Vanderdonckt J, España S, Panach JI, Pastor O (2007) The Beautification of Automatically Generated User Interfaces. In: Proceedings of XI IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT 2007), LNCS 4662. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 209–422Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Plimmer BE, Apperley M (2003) Software for Students to Sketch Interface Designs. In: Proceedings of Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT 2003). IOS, Amsterdam, pp 73–80Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rittel H, Webber M (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schipper M, Joosten S (1996) A validation procedure for information systems modelling techniques. In: Workshop on Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design, 8th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAISE’96). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vanderdonckt J, Limbourg Q, et al. (2004) USIXML: a User Interface Description Language for Specifying Multimodal User Interfaces. In: Proceedings of W3C Workshop on Multimodal Interaction (WMI’2004), Sophia Antipolis, GreeceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oscar Pastor
    • 1
  • Sergio España
    • 1
  • José Ignacio Panach
    • 1
  • Nathalie Aquino
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro de Investigación en Métodos de Producción de Software (ProS) Universidad Politécnica de Valencia ValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations