Advertisement

Model-Driven Engineering in a Large Industrial Context — Motorola Case Study

  • Paul Baker
  • Shiou Loh
  • Frank Weil
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3713)

Abstract

In an ongoing effort to reduce development costs in spite of increasing system complexity, Motorola has been a long-time adopter of Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) practices. The foundation of this approach is the creation of rigorous models throughout the development process, thereby enabling the introduction of automation. In this paper we present our experiences within Motorola in deploying a top-down approach to MDE for more than 15 years. We describe some of the key competencies that have been developed and the impact of MDE within the organization. Next we present some of the main issues encountered during MDE deployment, together with some possible resolutions.

Keywords

Message Sequence Chart Automatic Code Generation Increase System Complexity Hand Code Test Generation Tool 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baker, P.: Test Generation towards TTCN-3. In: ETSI TTCN-3 User Conference (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker, P., Burton, S., Bristow, P., King, D., Jervis, C., Mitchell, B., Thomson, R.: Detecting and Resolving Semantic Pathologies in UML Sequence Diagrams. In: ACM ESEC-Foundations of Software Engineering (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baker, P., Dai, Z., Grabowski, J., Haugen, O., Samuelsson, E., Schieferdecker, I., Williams, C.: The UML 2.0 Testing Profile. In: Proc. of the Conf. on Quality Engineering in Software Technology 2004, Nuremberg, Germany (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baker, P., Jervis, C., King, D.: An Industrial use of FP: A Tool for Generating Test Scripts from System Specifications. In: Trinder, P., Michaelson, G., Loidl, H.-W. (eds.) Trends in Functional Programming. Intellect, vol. 1, pp. 126–135 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boyle, J., Harmer, T., Weigert, T., Weil, F.: Knowledge-Based Derivation of Programs from Specifications. In: Bourbakis, N. (ed.) Artificial Intelligence And Automation, World Scientific Press, Singapore (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dietz, P., Weigert, T., Weil, F.: Formal Techniques for Automatically Generating Marshalling Code from High-Level Specifications. In: Proc. of the 1998 Workshop on Industrial-strength Formal Specification Techniques, Boca Raton, FL (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Telecommunications Standards Institute: Methods for Testing and Specification; The Testing and Control Notation version 3 (TTCN-3); Part 1: TTCN-3 Core Language. ETSI ES 201 873-1 (2001) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gras, J., McGaw, D.: End-to-End Defect Prediction. In: IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), Saint Malo, France (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hatley, D., Pirbhai, I.: Strategies for Real-Time System Specification. Dorset House, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    International Telecommunications Union: Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1): Specification of Basic Notation. ITU-T Rec. X.680 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    International Telecommunications Union: Message Sequence Chart (MSC). ITU-T Rec. Z.120 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    International Telecommunications Union: Specification and Description Language. ITU-T Rec. Z.100 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    International Telecommunications Union: TTCN-2 standard, Conformance Testing Methodology and Framework: Part 3: The Tree and Tabular Combined Notation (TTCN). ITU-T Rec. X.292 (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kleppe, A., Warmer, J., Bast, W.: MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mitchell, B., Thomson, R., Jervis, C.: Phase Automaton for Requirements Scenarios. In: Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems VII, pp. 77–84. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language (UML): Superstructure, Version 2.0 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Baker
    • 1
  • Shiou Loh
    • 2
  • Frank Weil
    • 3
  1. 1.Motorola Labs, Jays Close, Viables Industrial EstateBasingstoke, HampshireUK
  2. 2.Motorola IncSchaumburgUSA
  3. 3.Motorola Global SoftwareSchaumburgUSA

Personalised recommendations