Advertisement

Main Features for MDD Tools: An Exploratory Study

  • Beatriz MarínEmail author
  • Andrés Salinas
  • Juan Morandé
  • Giovanni Giachetti
  • Jose Luis de la Vara
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 506)

Abstract

Software Engineering aims to apply methods and processes for effective and efficient software development. One of the most relevant paradigms for achieving this goal is Model-Driven Development (MDD), which advocates the use of models for automatically generating software products. However, an important issue in the development and selection of MDD technologies is the lack of standardization regarding the features that need to be considered to support the current industry needs. This hinders the comparison of existing technologies since there is no reference point for the creation of new MDD approaches with their corresponding supporting tools. As a solution, this paper proposes a set of main features that MDD tools must support. The set is based on different characteristics that have been acknowledged in the literature, and has been validated by means of an exploratory study with tool vendors. We also present an analysis of how eight industrial MDD tools support these features in order to illustrate the application of our proposal.

Keywords

Model-Driven Development (MDD) Tools Features Exploratory study Model-Driven Architecture (MDA) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by FONDECYT – CONICYT (Chile) under the projects TESTMODE (Ref. 11121395, 2012–2015), AMODDI (Ref. 11130583, 2013–2017), and from the Research Council of Norway under the project Certus-SFI.

References

  1. 1.
    Balogh, A., Varró, D.: Advanced model transformation language constructs in the VIATRA2 Framework. In: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing – Model Transformation Track (SAC), pp. 1280–1287. ACM Press (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berson, A.: Client/Server Architecture. McGraw-Hill, New York (1996). ISBN 0-07-005664-1Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carrillo-de-Gea, J.M., Nicolás, J., Fernández Alemán, J.L., Toval, A., Ebert, C., Vizcaíno, A.: Requirements engineering tools: capabilities, survey and assessment. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54(10), 1142–1157 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Conradi, R., Mohagheghi, P., Arif, T., Hegde, L.C., Bunde, G.A., Pedersen, A.: Object-oriented reading techniques for inspection of uml models – an industrial experiment. In: Cardelli, L. (ed.) 17th ECOOP, vol. 2749, pp. 483–501. Springer (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    de la Vara, J.L., Panesar-Walawege, R.K.: SafetyMet: a metamodel for safety standards. In: Moreira, A., Schätz, B., Gray, J., Vallecillo, A., Clarke, P. (eds.) MODELS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8107, pp. 69–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dias Neto, A.C., Subramanyan, R., Vieira, M., Travassos, G.H.: A survey on model-based testing approaches: a systematic review. In: 1st ACM International Workshop on Empirical Assessment of Software Engineering Languages and Technologies (WEASELTech 2007), pp. 31–36. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Egyed, A.: Instant consistency checking for the UML. In: 28th ICSE, pp. 381–390. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Fowler, M., Parsons, R., MacKenzie, J.: Pojo, an acronym for: plain old java object. http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/POJO.html
  10. 10.
    Garber, L.: Tangible user interfaces: technology you can touch. IEEE Comput. 45(6), 15–18 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., Rouncefield, M., Kristoffersen, S.: Empirical assessment of MDE in industry. In: ICSE 2011, pp. 471–480 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 9126-1, software engineering – product quality – part 1: quality model (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Juristo, N., Moreno, A.: Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation. Springer, Berlin (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S.: Personal opinion surveys. In: Shull, F, Singer, J., Sjøberg, D.I.K. (eds.) Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering. Springer, 63–92 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S.: Software quality: the elusive target. IEEE Softw. 13(1), 12–21 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lange, C., Chaudron, M.: An empirical assessment of completeness in UML designs. In: 8th Conference on Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE), pp. 111–121. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Loniewski, G., Insfran, E., Abrahão, S.: A systematic review of the use of requirements engineering techniques in model-driven development. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6395, pp. 213–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marín, B., Giachetti, G., Pastor, O., Vos, T.E.J., Abran, A.: Using a functional size measurement procedure to evaluate the quality of models in MDD environments. ACM Trans. Software Eng. Methodol. 22(3), Article 26, 1–31 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marín, B., Pereira, J., Giachetti, G., Hermosilla, F., Serral, E.: A general framework for the development of MDD projects. In: 1st International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - MODELSWARD 2013, pp. 257–260. SciTePress (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marín, B., Vos, T., Giachetti, G., Baars, A., Tonella, P.: Towards testing future web applications. In: 5th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS 2011), pp. 226–237. IEEE Computer Society (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    OMG: MDA guide version 1.0.1 (2003). http://www.omg.org/mda/mda_files/MDA_Guide_Version1-0.pdf (last visited September 2015)
  22. 22.
    OMG: MDA products and companies. http://www.omg.org/mda/committed-products.htm
  23. 23.
    OMG: Object constraint language 2.0 specification (2006). http://www.omg.org/spec/OCL/2.0 (last visited September 2015)
  24. 24.
    OMG: Object management group web site. http://www.omg.org/
  25. 25.
    OMG: UML 2.1.2 infrastructure specification (2007). http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.1.2/Infrastructure/PDF (last visited September 2015)
  26. 26.
    OMG: UML 2.3 superstructure specification (2010). http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.3/Superstructure/PDF (last visited September 2015)
  27. 27.
    OMG: XMI 2.1.1 specification (2007). http://www.omg.org/spec/XMI/2.1.1 (last visited September 2015)
  28. 28.
    Paige, R.F., Varró, D.: Lessons learned from building model-driven development tools. Softw. Syst. Model. 11(4), 527–539 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pastor, O., Giachetti, G., Marín, B., Valverde, F.: Automating the interoperability of conceptual models in specific development domains. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Sturm, A., Clark, T., Cohen, S., Bettin, J. (eds.) Domain Engineering: Product Lines, Languages, and Conceptual Models, pp. 349–374. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pastor, O., Gómez, J., Insfrán, E., Pelechano, V.: The OO-method approach for information systems modelling: from object-oriented conceptual modeling to automated programming. Inf. Syst. 26(7), 507–534 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pastor, O., Hayes, F., Bear, S.: OASIS: an object-oriented specification language. In: International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE), pp. 348–363 (1992)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prikladnicki, R., Marczak, S., Carmel, E., Ebert, C.: Technologies to support collaboration across time zones. IEEE Softw. 29(3), 10–13 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reenskaug, T.: The model-view-controller (MVC), its past and present. University of Oslo (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Selic, B.: The pragmatics of model-driven development. IEEE Softw. 20(5), 19–25 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Travassos, G., Shull, F., Fredericks, M., Basili, V.: Detecting defects in object-oriented designs: using reading techniques to increase software quality. In: OOPSLA 1999, pp. 47–56 (1999)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Utting, M., Pretschner, A., Legeard, B.: A taxonomy of model-based testing approaches. Softw. Test. Verification Reliab. 22(5), 297–312 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Host, M., Ohlsson, M., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering - An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yang, Q., Li, J.J., Weiss, D.M.: A survey of coverage-based testing tools. Comput. J. 52(5), 589–597 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beatriz Marín
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrés Salinas
    • 1
  • Juan Morandé
    • 1
  • Giovanni Giachetti
    • 2
  • Jose Luis de la Vara
    • 3
  1. 1.Facultad de IngenieríaUniversidad Diego PortalesSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Facultad de IngenieríaUniversidad Andrés BelloSantiagoChile
  3. 3.Certus Centre for Software V&VSimula Research LaboratoryLysakerNorway

Personalised recommendations