Advertisement

Domain-Specific Modeling Languages: Requirements Analysis and Design Guidelines

  • Ulrich FrankEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In recent years, the development of domain-specific modeling languages has gained remarkable attention. This is for good reasons. A domain-specific modeling language incorporates concepts that represent domain-level knowledge. Hence, systems analysts are not forced to reconstruct these concepts from scratch. At the same time, domain-specific modeling languages contribute to model integrity, because they include already constraints that would otherwise have to be added manually. Even though there has been a considerable amount of research on developing and using domain-specific modeling languages, there is still lack of comprehensive methods to guide the design of these languages. With respect to the complexity and risk related to developing a domain-specific modeling language, this is a serious shortfall. This chapter is aimed at a contribution to filling the gap. At first, it presents guidelines for selecting a metamodeling language. Its main focus is on supporting the process from analyzing requirements to specifying and evaluating a domain-specific modeling language.

Keywords

Graphical notation of DSML Quality of DSML Design of DSML Design process of DSML Requirements analysis of DSML 

References

  1. 1.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Reducing accidental complexity in domain models. Software Syst. Model. 7(3), 345–359 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bunge, M.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy, vol. 3: Ontology I: The Furniture of the World. Reidel, Dordrecht (1977)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Ontological evaluation of reference models using the Bunge-Wand-Weber Model. In: Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), pp. 2944–2955. Tampa, FL (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frank, U.: Evaluating modelling languages: relevant issues, epistemological challenges and a preliminary research framework. Tech. rep., University of Koblenz (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frank, U.: The MEMO Meta Modelling Language (MML) and Language Architecture, 2nd edn. Tech. Rep. 43, University of Duisburg-Essen (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frank, U.: Some guidelines for the conception of domain-specific modelling languages. In: Nüttgens, M., Oliver, T., Weber, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the Conference ‘Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures’ (EMISA 2011), vol. P-190, pp. 93–106. GI, Bonn (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldstein, R., Storey, V.: Some findings on the intuitiveness of entity-relationship constructs. In: Lochowsky, F.H. (ed.) Entity-Relationship Approach to Database Design and Querying, pp. 9–23. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyte, J.: Situational method engineering: state-of-the-art review. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 16(3), 424–478 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kelly, S., Tolvanen, J.P.: Domain-Specific Modelling. Enabling Full Code Generation. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moody, D.L.: The “Physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Odell, J.: Power types. J. Object Oriented Program. 7(2), 8–12 (1994)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Opdahl, A., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Evaluating and improving OO modelling languages using the BWW-model. In: Proceedings of the Information Systems Foundation Workshop 1999, Sydney. www.comp.mq.edu.au/isf99/Opdahl.htm (1999). Last accessed April 2013
  13. 13.
    Süttenbach, R., Ebert, J.: A Booch metamodel. Tech. rep., University of Koblenz (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wand, Y., Weber, R.: On the deep structure of information systems. Inform. Syst. J. 5(3), 203–23 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weber, R.: Ontological Foundations of Information Systems. Coopers & Lybrand, Melbourne (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Systems and Enterprise Modeling, Institute for Computer Science and Business Information SystemsUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations