Advertisement

MetaEdit+ A fully configurable multi-user and multi-tool CASE and CAME environment

  • Steven Kelly
  • Kalle Lyytinen
  • Matti Rossi
CASE Environments
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1080)

Abstract

Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE) environments have spread at a lower pace than expected. One reason for this is the immaturity of existing environments in supporting development in-the-large and by-many and their inability to address the varying needs of the software developers. In this paper we report on the development of a next generation CASE environment called MetaEdit+. The environment seeks to overcome all the above deficiencies, but in particular pays attention to catering for the varying needs of the software developers. MetaEdit+ is a multi-method, multi-tool platform for both CASE and Computer Aided Method Engineering (CAME). As a CASE tool it establishes a versatile and powerful multi-tool environment which enables flexible creation, maintenance, manipulation, retrieval and representation of design information among multiple developers. As a CAME environment it offers an easy-to-use yet powerful environment for method specification, integration, management and re-use. The paper explains the motivation for developing MetaEdit+, its design goals and philosophy and discusses the functionality of the CAME tools.

Keywords

CASE CAME method software engineering environments repository metamodeling conceptual modeling object oriented modeling tool interoperability tool integration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Aae91.
    Aaen, Ivan, Carsten Sørensen, “A CASE of Great Expectations,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 3(1) (1991) pp.3–23.Google Scholar
  2. Alf77.
    Alford, M., “A Requirements Engineering Methodology for Real Time Processing Requirements,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 3(1) (1977) pp.60–69.Google Scholar
  3. ANS75.
    ANSI, “Study Group on Data Base Management Systems: Interim Report 75-02-08”, ACM SIGMOD Newsletter 7(2) (1975).Google Scholar
  4. Ber89.
    Bergsten, Per, Janis Bubenko jr., Roland Dahl, Mats Gustafsson and Lars-Åke Johansson, “RAMATIC — A CASE Shell for Implementation of Specific CASE Tools,” Tempora T6.1 Report, first draft, SISU, Gothenburg (1989).Google Scholar
  5. Bri90.
    Brinkkemper, Sjaak, “Formalisation of Information Systems Modelling,” Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Nijmegen, Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam (1990).Google Scholar
  6. Bro75.
    Brooks, F., “The Mythical Man Month: Essays on Software Engineering,” Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, USA (1975).Google Scholar
  7. Bro91.
    Brown, Alan W., “Object-oriented Databases: their applications to software engineering,” McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead UK (1991).Google Scholar
  8. Bub88.
    Bubenko, J. A., “Selecting a Strategy for Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE),” Report 59, SYSLAB, University of Stockholm, Sweden (1988).Google Scholar
  9. CDI91.
    CDIF, “CASE Data Interchange Format Interim Standards vol. 1–3,” Electronic Industries Association Engineering Department (1991).Google Scholar
  10. Cha86.
    Charette, R., “Software Engineering Environments, Concepts and Technology,” McGraw-Hill, New York, USA (1986).Google Scholar
  11. Che76.
    Chen, P. P., “The Entity-Relationship Model: Toward a Unified View of Data,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1(1) (1976) pp.9–36.Google Scholar
  12. Che88.
    Chen, Minder, “The Integration of Organization and Information Systems Modeling: A Metasystem Approach to the Generation of Group Decision Support Systems and Compute-aided Software Engineering,” PhD Thesis, University of Arizona, Tuscon, USA (1988).Google Scholar
  13. Cyb92.
    Cybulski, Jacob L., Karl Reed, “A Hypertext-Based Software Engineering Environment” IEEE Software (March 1992) pp.62–68.Google Scholar
  14. ECM91.
    ECMA, “Reference Model for Frameworks of Software Engineering Environments,” Technical Report ECMA TR/55, 2nd Edition (1991).Google Scholar
  15. Gan79.
    Gane, C., T. Sarson, “Structured Systems Analysis: Tools and Techniques” Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1979).Google Scholar
  16. Hah91.
    Hahn, U., M. Jarke and T. Rose, “Teamwork Support in a Knowledge-Based Information Systems Environment,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 17(5) (1991) pp.467–481.Google Scholar
  17. Har93.
    Harmsen, F., S. Brinkkemper, “Computer Aided Method Engineering based on existing Meta-CASE technology,” pp. 125–140 in Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on The Next Generation of CASE Tools, Sjaak Brinkkemper, Frank Harmsen (Ed.) No. 93-32, Univ. of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands (1993).Google Scholar
  18. Har94.
    Harmsen, Frank, Sjaak Brinkkemper and Han Oei, “Situational Method Engineering for Information System Project Approaches,” pp. 169–194 in Methods and Associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle (A-55), A. A. Verrijn-Stuart and T. W. Olle (Ed.), Elsevier Science B.V. (North-Holland) (1994).Google Scholar
  19. Hen90.
    Henderson, J., J. Cooprider, “Dimensions of IS Planning and Design Aids: a functional model of CASE technology,” Information Systems Research 1(3) (1990) pp.227–254.Google Scholar
  20. Hey92.
    Heym, M., H. Österle, “A Reference Model of Information Systems Development,” pp. 215–240 in The Impact of Computer Supported Technologies on Information Systems Development, K. E. Kendall, K. Lyytinen, J. L. DeGross (Ed.), North-Holland, Amsterdam (1992).Google Scholar
  21. Hey93.
    Heym, M., H. Österle, “Computer-aided methodology engineering,” Information & Software Technology 35(6/7) (1993) pp.345–354.Google Scholar
  22. Ind87.
    Index Technology Corporation, “Excelerator Reference Guide,” Index Technology Corporation, Cambridge, USA (1987).Google Scholar
  23. ISO89.
    ISO, “Information processing systems: Information Resource Dictionary System (IRDS) Framework” Draft International Standard ISO/IEC DIS 10027 (1989).Google Scholar
  24. Kat84.
    Katz, Randy H., “Transaction Management in the Design Environment,” in New Applications of Databases, Georges Garderin and E Ge (Ed.), Academic Press, London UK (1984).Google Scholar
  25. Kel94a.
    Kelly, Steven, Veli-Pekka Tahvanainen, “Support for Incremental Method Engineering and MetaCASE,” in Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on the Next Generation of CASE Tools, B. Theodoulidis (Ed.) Memoranda Informatica 94-25, Universiteit Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands (1994).Google Scholar
  26. Kel94b.
    Kelly, S., “A Matrix Editor for a MetaCASE Environment,” Information and Software Technology 36(6) (1994) pp.361–371.Google Scholar
  27. Kel95.
    Kelly, Steven, Kari Smolander, “Evolution and Issues in MetaCASE,” Information and Software Technology (to appear) (1995).Google Scholar
  28. Kum92.
    Kumar, Kuldeep, Richard J. Welke, “Methodology Engineering: A Proposal for Situation Specific Methodology Construction,” pp. 257–269 in Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development, Kottermann, W. W. and Senn, J. A. (Ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Washington (1992).Google Scholar
  29. Liu95.
    Liu, H., “A Visual Interface for Querying a CASE Repository,” in Proc. of the Eleventh IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages (VL'95), Darmstadt Germany (1995).Google Scholar
  30. Lyy89.
    Lyytinen, Kalle, Kari Smolander and Veli-Pekka Tahvanainen, “Modelling CASE Environments in Systems Development,” in Proceedings of the first Nordic Conference on Advanced Systems, SISU, Stockholm (1989).Google Scholar
  31. Lyy94.
    Lyytinen, K., P. Kerola, J. Kaipala, S. Kelly, J. Lehto, H. Liu, P. Marttiin, H. Oinas-Kukkonen, J. Pirhonen, M. Rossi, K. Smolander, V.-P. Tahvanainen and J.-P. Tolvanen, “MetaPHOR: Final report,” University of Jyväskylä, Finland (1994).Google Scholar
  32. Mar94.
    Marttiin, P., “Towards Flexible Process Support with a CASE shell,” pp. 14–27 in Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Proceedings of the Third International Conference CAiSE'94, Utrecht, The Netherlands, June 1994, G. Wijers, S. Brinkkemper and T. Wasserman (Ed.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1994).Google Scholar
  33. Mar95.
    Marttiin, Pentti, Kalle Lyytinen, Matti Rossi, Veli-Pekka Tahvanainen and Juha-Pekka Tolvanen, “Modeling requirements for future CASE: issues and implementation considerations,” Information Resources Management Journal 8(1) (1995) pp.15–25.Google Scholar
  34. McC89.
    McClure, C., “CASE is Software Automation,” Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1989).Google Scholar
  35. Mer90.
    Mercurio, V. F., B. F. Meyers, A. M. Nisbet and G. Radin, “AD/Cycle strategy and architecture,” IBM Systems Journal 29(2) (1990) pp.170–188.Google Scholar
  36. Nij89.
    Nijssen, G. M., T. A. Halpin, “Conceptual Schema and Relational Database Design: A fact oriented approach,” Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1989).Google Scholar
  37. Oin93.
    Oinas-Kukkonen, H., “Hypertext Functionality in CASE Environments: Preliminary Findings,” Conference on Computers and Hypermedia in Engineering Education, Vaasa, Finland (May 24–26 1993).Google Scholar
  38. Ost87.
    Osterweil, L. J., “Software processes are software too,” pp. 180–188 in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering (1987).Google Scholar
  39. Poc91.
    Pocock, John N., “VSF and its Relationship to Open Systems and Standard Repositories,” pp. 53–68 in Software Development Environments and CASE Technology, A. Endres, H. Weber (Ed.), No. 509, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1991).Google Scholar
  40. Poh94.
    Pohl, K., R. Dömges and M. Jarke, “PRO-ART: PROcess based Approach to Requirements Traceability,” in Poster Outlines: 6th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Utrecht, Netherlands, June 1994 (1994).Google Scholar
  41. Pro94.
    ProtoSoft Inc., “Paradigm Plus/ Cadre Edition Reference Manual,” ProtoSoft Inc. (1994).Google Scholar
  42. Ros92.
    Rossi, M., M. Gustafsson, K. Smolander, L.-Å. Johansson and K. Lyytinen, “Metamodeling editor as a front end tool for a case-shell,” pp. 547–567 in Advanced Information Systems Engineering, P. Loucopoulos (Ed.), Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany (1992).Google Scholar
  43. Ros94.
    Rossi, M., J.-P. Tolvanen, “Metamodeling approach to method comparison: A survey of a set of ISD methods,” Working Paper, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä (1994).Google Scholar
  44. Ros95a.
    Rossi, M., S. Brinkkemper, “Metrics in Method Engineering,” pp. 200–216 in Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference CAiSE'95, J. Iivari, K. Lyytinen and M. Rossi (Ed.)No. 932, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1995).Google Scholar
  45. Ros95b.
    Rossi, M., “The MetaEdit CAME environment,” Proceedings of the MetaCase 95, University of Sunderland press, Sunderland (1995).Google Scholar
  46. Smo91a.
    Smolander, Kari, Kalle Lyytinen, Veli-Pekka Tahvanainen and Pentti Marttiin, ”MetaEdit — A Flexible Graphical Environment for Methodology Modelling,” in Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Proceedings of the Third International Conference CAiSE'91, Trondheim, Norway, May 1991, R. Andersen, J. A. Bubenko jr. and A. Solvberg (Ed.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1991).Google Scholar
  47. Smo91b.
    Smolander, Kari, “OPRR: A Model for Modelling Systems Development Methods,” in Next Generation CASE Tools, K. Lyytinen and V.-P. Tahvanainen (Ed.), IOS Press, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (1991).Google Scholar
  48. Smo93a.
    Smolander, Kari, “MetaEdit+ Protocols and standard operations for processing GOPRR information structures: the Application Programmer's Interface,” Internal Technical Document, MetaPHOR project, Univ. of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland (1993).Google Scholar
  49. Smo93b.
    Smolander, Kari, “GOPRR: a proposal for a meta level model,” University of Jyväskylä, Finland (1993).Google Scholar
  50. Sor88.
    Sorenson, Paul G., Jean-Paul Tremblay and Andrew J. McAllister, “The Metaview System for Many Specification Environments,” IEEE SOFTWARE (March 1988) pp.30–38.Google Scholar
  51. Ste93.
    Stegwee, Robert A., Ria M. C. van Waes, “Flexible CASE tools for Information Systems Planning,” pp. 248–292 in Computer-Aided Software Engineering — Issues and Trends for the 1990s and Beyond, T. Bergin (Ed.), Idea Group Publishing (1993).Google Scholar
  52. Tei77.
    Teichroew, Daniel, Ernest A. Hershey_III, “PSL/PSA: A Computer-Aided Technique for Structured Documentation and Analysis of Information Processing Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (1977).Google Scholar
  53. Tei80.
    Teichroew, Daniel, Petar Macasovic, III Ernest A. Hershey and Yuzo Yamamoto, “Application of the entity-relationship approach to information processing systems modeling,” pp. 15–38 in Entity-Relationship Approach to Systems Analysis and Design, P. P. Chen (Ed.), North-Holland (1980).Google Scholar
  54. Wan93.
    Wand, Yair, Ron Weber, “On the ontological expressiveness of systems analysis and design grammars,” Journal of Information Systems (1993).Google Scholar
  55. Wel92.
    Welke, R. J., “The CASE Repository. More than another database application,” in Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development, William W. Cotterman and James A. Senn (Eds.) (Ed.), Wiley, Chichester UK (1992).Google Scholar
  56. Wij90.
    Wijers, G. M., H. E. van Dort, “Experiences with the use of CASE-tools in the Netherlands,” Advanced Information Systems Engineering (1990) pp.5–20.Google Scholar
  57. Wij91.
    Wijers, G. M., “Modelling Support in Information Systems Development,” Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam (1991).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Kelly
    • 1
  • Kalle Lyytinen
    • 1
  • Matti Rossi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information SystemsUniversity of Jyväskylä PL 35JyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations