The Relevance of Model-Driven Engineering Thirty Years from Now

  • Gunter Mussbacher
  • Daniel Amyot
  • Ruth Breu
  • Jean-Michel Bruel
  • Betty H. C. Cheng
  • Philippe Collet
  • Benoit Combemale
  • Robert B. France
  • Rogardt Heldal
  • James Hill
  • Jörg Kienzle
  • Matthias Schöttle
  • Friedrich Steimann
  • Dave Stikkolorum
  • Jon Whittle
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8767)

Abstract

Although model-driven engineering (MDE) is now an established approach for developing complex software systems, it has not been universally adopted by the software industry. In order to better understand the reasons for this, as well as to identify future opportunities for MDE, we carried out a week-long design thinking experiment with 15 MDE experts. Participants were facilitated to identify the biggest problems with current MDE technologies, to identify grand challenges for society in the near future, and to identify ways that MDE could help to address these challenges. The outcome is a reflection of the current strengths of MDE, an outlook of the most pressing challenges for society at large over the next three decades, and an analysis of key future MDE research opportunities.

Keywords

Model-driven engineering challenges research opportunities 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Agner, L.T.W., et al.: A Brazilian survey on UML and model-driven practices for embedded software development. J. of Systems and Software 86(4), 997–1005 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alam, O., Kienzle, J., Mussbacher, G.: Concern-Oriented Software Design. In: Moreira, A., Schätz, B., Gray, J., Vallecillo, A., Clarke, P. (eds.) MODELS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8107, pp. 604–621. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baker, P., Dai, Z.R., Grabowski, J., Haugen, Ø., Schieferdecker, I., Williams, C.: Model-Driven Testing – Using the UML Testing Profile. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ball, T., Cook, B., Levin, V., Rajamani, S.K.: SLAM and Static Driver Verifier: Technology Transfer of Formal Methods inside Microsoft. In: Boiten, E.A., Derrick, J., Smith, G.P. (eds.) IFM 2004. LNCS, vol. 2999, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bell, A.E.: Death by UML Fever. Queue 2(1), 72–80 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berenbach, B.: The evaluation of large, complex UML analysis and design models. In: 26th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Briand, L., Labiche, Y.: A UML-based approach to system testing. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 194–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Briand, L.C., Labiche, Y., O’Sullivan, L.: Impact analysis and change management of UML models. In: IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Broy, M., Jonsson, B., Katoen, J.-P., Leucker, M., Pretschner, A. (eds.): Model-Based Testing of Reactive Systems. LNCS, vol. 3472. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buckl, S., et al.: Generating Visualizations of Enterprise Architectures using Model Transformations. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Arch. 2(2), 3–13 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cabot, J.: Model driven engineering is not cool (November 08, 2012), http://modeling-languages.com/mde-is-not-cool/
  12. 12.
    Cheng, B.H.C., Stephenson, R., Berenbach, B.: Lessons learned from automated analysis of industrial UML class models (an experience report). In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 324–338. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Combemale, B., et al.: Introducing simulation and model animation in the mdetopcased toolkit. In: 4th European Congress Embedded Real Time Software, ERTS (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cook, S., Jones, G., Kent, S., Wills, A.C.: Domain-specific development with visual studio DSL tools. Pearson Education (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cross, N.: Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work. Berg, Oxford UK (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Classification of model transformation approaches. In: 2nd OOPSLA Wksh. on Generative Techniques in the Context of the MDA (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dalal, S.R., Jain, A., Karunanithi, N., Leaton, J.M., Lott, C.M., Patton, G.C., Horowitz, B.M.: Model-based testing in practice. In: 21st ICSE, pp. 285–294. ACM (March 1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dias Neto, A.C., et al.: A survey on model-based testing approaches: a systematic review. In: Wksh. on Empirical Assessment of Softw. Eng. Lang. and Techn., pp. 31–36. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dobing, B., Parsons, J.: How UML is Used. Communications of the ACM 49, 109–113 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Farias, K., Garcia, A., Whittle, J., Lucena, C.: Analyzing the Effort of Composing Design Models of Large-Scale Software in Industrial Case Studies. In: Moreira, A., Schätz, B., Gray, J., Vallecillo, A., Clarke, P. (eds.) MODELS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8107, pp. 639–655. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    France, R., Rumpe, B.: Model-driven development of complex software: A research roadmap. In: Future of Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goldsby, H.J., Cheng, B.H.C., Konrad, S., Kamdoum, S.: A visualization framework for the modeling and formal analysis of high assurance systems. In: Wang, J., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 707–721. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grossman, M., et al.: Does UML make the grade? Insights from the software development community. Information and Software Technology 47(6), 383–397 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hill, J.H.: Measuring and reducing modeling effort in domain-specific modeling languages with examples. In: IEEE Eng. of Computer Based Systems (ECBS), pp. 120–129 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hildebrandt, S., et al.: A Survey of Triple Graph Grammar Tools. Electronic Communications of the EASST 57, 1–17 (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hutchinson, J., Rouncefield, M., Whittle, J.: Model Driven Engineering Practices in Industry. In: ICSE 2011, pp. 633–642 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., Rouncefield, M., Kristoffersen, S.: Empirical Assessment of MDE in Industry. In: ICSE 2011, pp. 471–480 (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Inmon, W.H., Zachman, J.A., Geiger, J.G.: Data Stores, Data Warehousing, and the Zachman Framework: Managing Enterprise Knowledge. McGraw-Hill (1997)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jézéquel, J.-M., Barais, O., Fleurey, F.: Model driven language engineering with Kermeta. In: Fernandes, J.M., Lämmel, R., Visser, J., Saraiva, J. (eds.) GTTSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 6491, pp. 201–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kawahara, R., et al.: Verification of embedded system’s specification using collaborative simulation of SysML and simulink models. In: MBSE 2009, pp. 21–28 (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.: Eclipse development tools for epsilon. In: Eclipse Summit Europe, Eclipse Modeling Symposium, vol. 20062 (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kurtev, I.: State of the art of QVT: A model transformation language standard. In: Schürr, A., Nagl, M., Zündorf, A. (eds.) AGTIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 5088, pp. 377–393. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lédeczi, Á., Bakay, A., Maroti, M., Volgyesi, P., Nordstrom, G., Sprinkle, J., Karsai, G.: Composing domain-specific design environments. Computer 34(11), 44–51 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lilius, J., Paltor, I.P.: Formalising UML state machines for model checking. In: France, R.B. (ed.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 430–444. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Martin, G., Büttner, F., Richters, M.: USE: A UML-based specification environment for validating UML and OCL. Science of Computer Programming 69(1), 27–34 (2007)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mayart, F., Bruel, J.-M.: Psychological Requirements for Software Engineers: A Reverse Engineering Approach. In: IEEE C3SEE, pp. 137–146 (2004)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    McUmber, W.E., Cheng, B.H.C.: A general framework for formalizing UML with formal languages. In: 23rd ICSE, pp. 433–442. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mohagheghi, P., Dehlen, V.: Where is the Proof? – A Review of Experiences from Applying MDE in Industry. In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5095, pp. 432–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Moussa, A., et al.: Towards a model transformation intentcatalog. In: First Workshop onthe Analysis of Model Transformations, pp. 3–8. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nugroho, A., Chaudron, M.R.V.: A survey into the rigor of UML use and its perceived impact on quality and productivity. In: ESEM 2008, pp. 90–99. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Offutt, J., Abdurazik, A.: Generating Tests from UML Specifications. In: France, R.B. (ed.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 416–429. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pati, T., Feiock, D.C., Hill, J.H.: Proactive modeling: auto-generating models from their semantics and constraints. In: Wksh. on Domain-Spec. Modeling, pp. 7–12. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Petre, M.: UML in practice. In: 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2013), pp. 722–731. IEEE Press (2013)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Radfelder, O., Gogolla, M.: On better understanding UML diagrams through interactive three-dimensional visualization and animation. In: AVI. ACM (2000)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Scheer, A.-W., Nüttgens, M.: ARIS Architecture and Reference Models for Business Process Management. In: van der Aalst, W., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 376–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sol, E., Harel, D., Cohen, I.R.: Reactive animation: Realistic modeling of complex dynamic systems. Computer 38(1), 38–47 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stikkolorum, D.R., Stevenson, C.E., Chaudron, M.R.V.: Assessing software design skills and their relation with reasoning skills. In: EduSymp 2013. CEUR, vol. 1134, paper 5 (2013)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Utting, M., Pretschner, A., Legeard, B.: A taxonomy of model-based testing approaches. Journal on Softw. Testing, Verification & Reliability 22(5), 297–312 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Hee, K.M.: Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems. MIT Press (2002)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Whittle, J., Hutchinson, J., Rouncefield, M., Burden, H., Heldal, R.: Industrial Adoption of Model-Driven Engineering: Are the Tools Really the Problem? In: Moreira, A., Schätz, B., Gray, J., Vallecillo, A., Clarke, P. (eds.) MODELS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8107, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Whittle, J., Hutchinson, J., Rouncefield, M.: The State of Practice in Model-Driven Engineering. IEEE Software 31(3), 79–85 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wu, Y., Hernandez, F., Ortega, F., Clarke, P.J., France, R.: Measuring the effort for creating and using domain-specific models. In: Wksh. on Domain-Spec. Mod., p. 14. ACM (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gunter Mussbacher
    • 1
  • Daniel Amyot
    • 2
  • Ruth Breu
    • 3
  • Jean-Michel Bruel
    • 4
  • Betty H. C. Cheng
    • 5
  • Philippe Collet
    • 6
  • Benoit Combemale
    • 7
  • Robert B. France
    • 8
  • Rogardt Heldal
    • 9
  • James Hill
    • 10
  • Jörg Kienzle
    • 1
  • Matthias Schöttle
    • 1
  • Friedrich Steimann
    • 11
  • Dave Stikkolorum
    • 12
  • Jon Whittle
    • 13
  1. 1.McGill UniversityCanada
  2. 2.University of OttawaCanada
  3. 3.University of InnsbruckAustria
  4. 4.University of ToulouseFrance
  5. 5.Michigan State UniversityUSA
  6. 6.Université Nice-Sophia AntipolisFrance
  7. 7.University of Rennes / INRIAFrance
  8. 8.Colorado State UniversityUSA
  9. 9.Chalmers University of TechnologySweden
  10. 10.Indiana University-Purdue University IndianapolisUSA
  11. 11.Fernuniversität HagenGermany
  12. 12.Leiden UniversityThe Netherlands
  13. 13.Lancaster UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations