Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Artefacts in software engineering: a fundamental positioning

Software & Systems Modeling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

Abstract

Artefacts play a vital role in software and systems development processes. Other terms like documents, deliverables, or work products are widely used in software development communities instead of the term artefact. In the following, we use the term ‘artefact’ including all these other terms. Despite its relevance, the exact denotation of the term ‘artefact’ is still not clear due to a variety of different understandings of the term and to a careless negligent usage. This often leads to approaches being grounded in a fuzzy, unclear understanding of the essential concepts involved. In fact, there does not exist a common terminology. Therefore, it is our goal that the term artefact be standardised so that researchers and practitioners have a common understanding for discussions and contributions. In this position paper, we provide a positioning and critical reflection upon the notion of artefacts in software engineering at different levels of perception and how these relate to each other. We further contribute a metamodel that provides a description of an artefact that is independent from any underlying process model. This metamodel defines artefacts at three levels. Abstraction and refinement relations between these levels allow correlating artefacts to each other and defining the notion of related, refined, and equivalent artefacts. Our contribution shall foster the long overdue and too often underestimated terminological discussion on what artefacts are to provide a common ground with clearer concepts and principles for future software engineering contributions, such as the design of artefact-oriented development processes and tools.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this context, we use the term ‘stakeholder’ to denote humans building artefacts as well as humans making use of artefacts.

References

  1. Altmanninger, K., Seidl, M., Wimmer, M.: A survey on model versioning approaches. Int J Web Inf Syst 5, 271 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Böhm, W., Vogelsang, A.: An artifact-oriented framework for the seamless development of embedded systems. In: Dritter Workshop zur Zukunft der Entwicklung softwareintensiver eingebetteter Systeme (2013)

  3. Braun, C., Wortmann, F., Hafner, M., Winter, R.: Method construction: a core approach to organizational engineering. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (2005)

  4. Braun, P., Broy, M., Houdek, F., Kirchmayr, M., Müller, M., Penzenstadler, B., Pohl, K., Weyer, T.: Guiding requirements engineering for software-intensive embedded systems in the automotive industry. Comput. Sci. Res. Dev. 29, 21–43 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Broy, M.: A logical approach to systems engineering artifacts: semantic relationships and dependencies beyond traceability-from requirements to functional and architectural views. Int. J. Softw. Syst. Model 60, 1 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brunet, G., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S., Nejati, S., Niu, N., Sabetzadeh, M.: A manifesto for model merging. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Global Integrated Model Management (2006)

  7. Butting, A., Greifenberg, T., Rumpe, B., Wortmann, A.: On the Need for Artifact Models in Model-Driven Systems Engineering Projects. Applications and Foundations. Software Technologies, New Delhi (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kathleen, C., Palmquist, M.: Extracting, representing, and analyzing mental models. Soc. Forces 70, 601 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kuhrmann, M., Méndez Fernández, D.: From pragmatic to systematic software process improvement: an evaluated approach. IET Softw. 9, 157–165 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kuhrmann, M., Méndez Fernández, D., Groeber, M.: Towards artifact models as process interfaces in distributed software projects. In: Proceedings of the 153h of the 8th International Conference on on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE 2013) (2013)

  11. Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Sølverg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modelling. IEEE Softw. 23, 40 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Méndez Fernández, D., Penzenstadler, B., Kuhrmann, M., Broy, M.: A meta model for artefact-orientation: fundamentals and lessons learned in requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS 2010)

  13. Méndez Fernández, D., Wagner, S., Lochmann, K., Baumann, A., de Carne, H.: Field study on requirements engineering: investigation of artefacts, project parameters, and execution strategies. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 162–178 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S., Zave, P.: Matching and merging of statecharts specifications. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (2007)

  15. OMG. Software and Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model (SPEM) Specification V. 2.0. Technical Standard formal/2008-04-01, Object Management Group (2008)

  16. Parnas, D.L., Clements, P.C.: A rational design process: how and why to fake it. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 12(2), 251–257 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Silva, M., Oliveira, T., Bastos, R.: Software artifact meta-model: an approach to software artifact authoring (2008). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.456.1940&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technical University of Munich, Boltzmannstr. 3, 85748, Garching, Germany

    Daniel Méndez Fernández, Wolfgang Böhm & Manfred Broy

  2. Technical University of Berlin, Ernst-Reuter-Platz 7, 10587, Berlin, Germany

    Andreas Vogelsang

  3. Tableau Germany GmbH, Maximilianstr. 35, 80539, Munich, Germany

    Jakob Mund

  4. Clausthal University of Technology, Wallstr. 6, 38640, Goslar, Germany

    Marco Kuhrmann

  5. University of Duisburg-Essen, Gerlingstraße 16, 45127, Essen, Germany

    Thorsten Weyer

Authors
  1. Daniel Méndez Fernández
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wolfgang Böhm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreas Vogelsang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jakob Mund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Manfred Broy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marco Kuhrmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Thorsten Weyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Méndez Fernández.

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

Méndez Fernández, D., Böhm, W., Vogelsang, A. et al. Artefacts in software engineering: a fundamental positioning. Softw Syst Model 18, 2777–2786 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00714-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00714-3

Keywords

search

Navigation