Advertisement

Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 327–342 | Cite as

Requirements traceability in model-driven development: Applying model and transformation conformance

  • João Paulo A. AlmeidaEmail author
  • Maria-Eugenia Iacob
  • Pascal van Eck
Article

Abstract

The variety of design artifacts (models) produced in a model-driven design process results in an intricate relationship between requirements and the various models. This paper proposes a methodological framework that simplifies management of this relationship, which helps in assessing the quality of models, realizations and transformation specifications. Our framework is a basis for understanding requirements traceability in model-driven development, as well as for the design of tools that support requirements traceability in model-driven development processes. We propose a notion of conformance between application models which reduces the effort needed for assessment activities. We discuss how this notion of conformance can be integrated with model transformations.

Keywords

Requirements traceability Assessment Conformance Model transformation Model-driven design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akehurst, D., Kent, S., & Patrascoiu, O. (2003). A relational approach to defining and implementing transformations between metamodels. Software and Systems Modeling, 2(4), 215–239, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almeida, J. P. A., Jonkers, H., Iacob, M. E., & Quartel, D. (2005). Platform-independent modelling of service infrastructure components: Towards the A-MUSE abstract platform, Freeband A-MUSE/D1.6, Telematica Instituut, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  3. Almeida, J. P. A. (2006a). Model-driven design of distributed applications. CTIT Ph.D.-Thesis Series, No. 06-85, Telematica Instituut Fundamental Research Series, no. 018.Google Scholar
  4. Almeida, J. P. A., Dijkman, R., Ferreira Pires, L., Quartel, D., & van Sinderen, M. (2006b). Model driven design, refinement and transformation of abstract interactions. Int’l J. Cooperative Information Systems (IJCIS), World Scientific, 599–632.Google Scholar
  5. Almeida, J. P. A., Iacob, M. E., Jonkers, H., & Quartel, D. (2006c). Model-driven development of context-aware services. Distributed Applications and Interoperable Systems (DAIS 2006), 6th IFIP Int’l Conference, LNCS, vol. 4025, Springer, 213–227.Google Scholar
  6. Almeida, J. P. A., van Eck, P., & Iacob, M. E. (2006d). Requirements traceability and transformation conformance in model-driven development. Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC’06), IEEE Computer Society Press, 355–366.Google Scholar
  7. Almeida, J. P. A., van Sinderen, M., Ferreira Pires, L., & Quartel, D. (2003). A systematic approach to platform-independent design based on the service concept. Proc. 7th IEEE Int’l Conf. on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing (EDOC 2003). IEEE CS Press, 112–134.Google Scholar
  8. Bolognesi, T., van de Lagemaat, J., & Vissers, C. (Eds.) (1995). LOTOSphere: Software development with LOTOS. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  9. Brottier, E., Fleurey, F., Steel, J., Baudry, B., & Le Traon, Y. (2006). Metamodel-based test generation for model transformations: An algorithm and a tool. Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE 2006), 85–94.Google Scholar
  10. Budinsky, F., et al. (2003). Eclipse modeling framework. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. Dai, Z. R. (2004). Model-Driven Testing with UML 2.0. Proceedings of the Second European Workshop on Model Driven Architecture (MDA) with an Emphasis on Methodologies and Transformations (EWMDA-2). Technical Report No. 17-04. Canterbury: Computing Laboratory, University of Kent.Google Scholar
  12. Dijkman, R. M. (2006). Consistency in multi-viewpoint architectural design, CTIT Ph.D.-Thesis Series, No. 06-80, Telematica Instituut Fundamental Research Series, No. 017.Google Scholar
  13. Egyed, A. F. (2003). A scenario-driven approach to trace dependency analysis. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29(2), 116–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Firesmith, D. (2003). Specifying good requirements. Journal of Object Technology, 2(4), 77–87.Google Scholar
  15. Fleurey, F., Steel, J., & Baudry, B. (2004). MDE and validation: Testing model transformation. Proc. of the Workshop on Specification Implementation and Validation Of Embedded Systems—Model Design and Validation (SIVOES-Modeva), 2004.Google Scholar
  16. Gavras, A., Belaunde, M., Ferreira Pires, L., & Almeida, J. P. A. (2004). Towards an MDA-based development methodology for distributed applications. Software Architecture: First European Workshop (EWSA’04), LNCS, vol. 3047, Springer, 230–240.Google Scholar
  17. Gibson, J. P., Dowling, T. F., & Malloy, B. A. (2000). The application of correctness preserving transformations to software maintenance. Proc. 16th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM’00), IEEE CS Press, 108–119.Google Scholar
  18. Gotel, O. (1995). Contribution structures for requirements traceability. Ph.D. Thesis. London, England: Department of Computing, Imperial College.Google Scholar
  19. Gotel, O., & Finkelstein, A. (1994). An analysis of the requirements traceability problem. Proc. First Int’l Conf. Requirements Engineering, 94–101.Google Scholar
  20. Hartman, A., Nagin, K., & Olvovsky, S. (2004). Model driven testing and MDA, Workshop on Model Driven Development (WMDD 2004) at ECOOP 2004, Oslo, Norway (June 14–18, 2004), http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~janoa/wmdd2004/papers
  21. Heckel, R., & Lohmann, M. (2003). Towards model-driven testing. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 82(6), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. IEEE (1998). IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications, IEEE Std 830-1998.Google Scholar
  23. IEEE (2002). IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology, IEEE Std. 610.12-1990 (R2002).Google Scholar
  24. ISO/ITU-T (1995), Open Distributed Processing—Reference Model—Part 2: Foundations, International Standard ISO/IEC 10746-2, ITU-T Recommendation X.902.Google Scholar
  25. Judson, S. R., France, R., & Carver, D. L. (2003). Specifying model transformations at the metamodel level. Proceedings of Workshop in Software Model Engineering associated to UML’03, San Francisco, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Küster, J. M. (2004). Systematic validation of model transformations. 3rd Workshop in Software Model Engineering (WiSME 2004), 7th International Conference on the UML (UML 2004), Lisbon, Portugal http://www.metamodel.com/wisme-2004/papers.html.
  27. Lin, Y., Zhang, J., & Gray, J. (2004). Model comparison: A key challenge for transformation testing and version control in model driven software development. Proceedings OOPSLA Workshop on Best Practices for Model-Driven Software Development, http://www.softmetaware.com/oopsla2004/mdsd-workshop.html
  28. Lin, Y., Zhang, J., & Gray, J. (2005). A testing framework for model transformations. Model-driven Software Development—Research and Practice in Software Engineering, 219–236. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Moriconi, M., Qian, X., & Riemenschneider, R. A. (1995). Correct architecture refinement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(4), 356–372, IEEE Computer Society Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Object Management Group (2003a), MDA-Guide, V1.0.1, omg/03-06-01.Google Scholar
  31. Object Management Group (2003b), Unified modelling language: Object constraint language version 2.0, ptc/03-10-04.Google Scholar
  32. Object Management Group (2005), MOF QVT final adopted specification, ptc/05-11-01.Google Scholar
  33. Pfaller, C., Fleischmann, A., Hartmann, J., Rappl, M., Rittmann, S., & Wild, D. (2006). On the integration of design and test: A model-based approach for embedded systems. Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Automation of Software Test (AST ’06) (pp. 15–21). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  34. Quartel, D., Ferreira Pires, L., & van Sinderen, M. (2002). On architectural support for behaviour refinement in distributed systems design. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, vol. 6, no. 1, Society for Design and Process Science, 1–30.Google Scholar
  35. Ramesh, B., & Jarke, M. (2001). Toward reference models for requirements traceability. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27(1), 58–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schot, J. (1992). The role of architectural semantics in the formal approach of distributed systems design. Ph.D. thesis. The Netherlands: University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  37. Software Engineering Institute (SEI) (2000). CMMI for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering, Version 1.02 (CMMI-SE/SW, V1.02), Tech. Report CMU/SEI-2000-TR-018.Google Scholar
  38. van den Berg, K., Conejero, J. M., & Hernández, J. (2006a). Analysis of crosscutting across software development phases based on traceability. Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Early Aspects at ICSE (pp. 43–50). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  39. van den Berg, K., Tekinerdogan, B., & Nguyen, H. (2006b). Analysis of crosscutting in model transformations. ECMDA Traceability Workshop, SINTEF Report A219, 51–64.Google Scholar
  40. Wright, S. (1991). Requirements Traceability—What? Why? and How?. Tools and Techniques for Maintaining Traceability During Design, IEE Colloquium, Computing and Control Division, Professional Group C1 (Software Engineering), U.K., Digest Number: 1991/180, 1/1-1/2.Google Scholar
  41. Zhu, H., Horgan, J. R., Cheung, S. C., & Li, J. J. (2006). The first international workshop on automation of software test. Proceeding of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’06)(pp. 1028–1029), New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • João Paulo A. Almeida
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Maria-Eugenia Iacob
    • 2
  • Pascal van Eck
    • 3
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentFederal University of Espírito SantoVitóriaBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Information Systems and Change ManagementUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Centre for Telematics and Information TechnologyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations