Improving Model Quality Using Diagram Coverage Criteria

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5565)


Every model has a purpose and the quality of a model ultimately measures its fitness relative to this purpose. In practice, models are created in a piecemeal fashion through the construction of many diagrams that structure a model into parts that together offer a coherent presentation of the content of the model. Each diagram also has a purpose – its role in the presentation of the model - and this determines what part of the model the diagram is intended to present. In this paper, we investigate what is involved in formally characterizing this intended content of diagrams as coverage criteria and show how doing this helps to improve model quality and support automation in the modeling process. We illustrate the approach and its benefits with a case study from the telecommunications industry.


Modeling Model quality Diagrams 


  1. 1.
    Baar, T.: Correctly defined concrete syntax for visual models. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 111–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gurr, C.: On the isomorphism, or lack of it, of representations. In: Marriott, K., Meyer, B. (eds.) Visual Language Theory, pp. 293–306. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huzar, Z., Kuzniarz, L., Reggio, G., Sourrouille, J.L.: Consistency problems in uml-based software development. In: Jardim Nunes, N., Selic, B., Rodrigues da Silva, A., Toval Alvarez, A. (eds.) UML Satellite Activities 2004. LNCS, vol. 3297, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ladkin, P.: Abstraction and modeling, research report RVS-Occ-97-04, University of Bielefeld (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ledeczi, A., Maroti, M., Bakay, A., Karsai, G., Garrett, J., Thomason IV, C., Nordstrom, G., Sprinkle, J., Volgyesi, P.: The Generic Modeling Environment. In: Workshop on Intelligent Signal Processing, May 17 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    MetaEdit+ website,
  7. 7.
    Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); Methodological approach to the use of object-orientation in the standards making process. ETSI EG 201 872 V1.2.1 (2001-2008),
  8. 8.
    MOFTM Query / Views / Transformations (QVT) – Final Spec.,
  9. 9.
    Nentwich, C., Capra, L., Emmerich, W., Finkelstein, A.: xlinkit: a consistency checking and smart link generation service. ACM TOIT 2(2), 151–185 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nuseibeh, B., Kramer, J., Finkelstein, A.: A Framework for Expressing the Relationships Between Multiple Views in Requirements Specifications. IEEE TSE 20(10), 760–773 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salay, R., Mylopoulos, J., Easterbrook, S.: Managing Models through Macromodeling. In: Proc. ASE 2008, pp. 447–450 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schauerhuber, A., Schwinger, W., Retschitzegger, W., Wimmer, M.: A Survey on Aspect-Oriented Modeling Approaches (2006),
  13. 13.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations