Single Underlying Models for Projectional, Multi-View Environments

Multi-view environments provide different views of software systems optimized for different stakeholders. One way of ensuring consistency of overlapping and inter-dependent information contained in such views is to project them “on demand” from a Single Underlying Model (SUM). However, there are various ways of building and evolving such SUMs. This paper presents criteria to distinguish them, describes three archetypical approaches for building SUMs, and analyzes their advantages and disadvantages. From these criteria, guidelines for choosing which approach to use in specific application areas are derived.

[1]  Antonio Vallecillo,et al.  Building Enterprise Systems with ODP - An Introduction to Open Distributed Processing , 2011, Chapman and Hall / CRC innovations in software engineering and software development.

[2]  Dirk Draheim,et al.  Supporting the Model-Driven Organization Vision through Deep, Orthographic Modeling , 2018, Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Archit. Int. J. Concept. Model..

[3]  Erik Burger,et al.  View-based model-driven software development with ModelJoin , 2016, Software & Systems Modeling.

[4]  Markus Herrmannsdoerfer,et al.  COPE - A Workbench for the Coupled Evolution of Metamodels and Models , 2010, SLE.

[5]  Andreas Winter,et al.  Model Consistency ensured by Metamodel Integration , 2018, MODELS Workshops.

[6]  Max E. Kramer.  Specification Languages for Preserving Consistency between Models of Different Languages , 2017 .

[7]  Krzysztof Czarnecki,et al.  From State- to Delta-Based Bidirectional Model Transformations: the Asymmetric Case , 2011, J. Object Technol..

[8]  Ulrich Frank,et al.  Multi-perspective enterprise modeling (MEMO) conceptual framework and modeling languages , 2002, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[9]  Colin Atkinson,et al.  Fundamental Realization Strategies for Multi-view Specification Environments , 2015, 2015 IEEE 19th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference.

[10]  Sander Vermolen,et al.  An Extensive Catalog of Operators for the Coupled Evolution of Metamodels and Models , 2010, SLE.

[11]  Colin Atkinson,et al.  Orthographic Software Modeling: A Practical Approach to View-Based Development , 2009, ENASE.

[12]  John A. Zachman,et al.  A Framework for Information Systems Architecture , 1987, IBM Syst. J..

[13]  Steffen Becker,et al.  Towards a Tool-Oriented Taxonomy of View-Based Modelling , 2012, Modellierung.

[14]  Maria-Eugenia Iacob,et al.  ArchiMate 2.0 Specification: The Open Group , 2012 .

[15]  Max E. Kramer,et al.  Change-driven consistency for component code, architectural models, and contracts , 2015, 2015 18th International ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering (CBSE).

[16]  H. Vangheluwe,et al.  An introduction to multi-paradigm modelling and simulation. , 2002 .

[17]  Max E. Kramer,et al.  View-centric engineering with synchronized heterogeneous models , 2013 .

[18]  Craig Larman,et al.  Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development (3rd Edition) , 1997 .

[19]  Barbara Paech,et al.  Component-based product line engineering with UML , 2001, Addison Wesley object technology series.

[20]  Umeshwar Dayal,et al.  On the updatability of network views-extending relational view theory to the network model , 1982, Inf. Syst..

[21]  Van Haren,et al.  TOGAF Version 9.1 , 2011 .

[22]  Philippe Kruchten,et al.  The 4+1 View Model of Architecture , 1995, IEEE Softw..

[23]  Hartmut Ehrig,et al.  From state- to delta-based bidirectional model transformations: the symmetric case , 2011, MODELS'11.

[24]  Bashar Nuseibeh,et al.  Viewpoints: A Framework for Integrating Multiple Perspectives in System Development , 1992, Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng..