Support for quality metrics in metamodelling

The maturity of Model Driven Engineering facilitates the development of domain specific languages. Their creation relies on the definition of metamodels, but also on their corresponding visual notations. One can wonder about the quality of any new language, which can result in inunderstandable diagrams with inappropriate notations. Then our goal is to provide indicators about the quality of notations thanks to metrics. In this paper, we present functions that are necesary to calculate these metrics in a metamodeling environment. Then we introduce how metrics are integrated in a modeling environment named ModX.

[1]  Someswar Kesh,et al.  Evaluating the quality of entity relationship models , 1995, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[2]  Ida Solheim,et al.  Model Quality in the Context of Model-Driven Development , 2017, MDEIS.

[3]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  Evaluating the quality of information models: empirical testing of a conceptual model quality framework , 2003, 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2003. Proceedings..

[4]  Vegard Dehlen,et al.  An Overview of Quality Frameworks in Model-Driven Engineering and Observations on Transformation Quality , 2007 .

[5]  Jadwiga Indulska,et al.  Modelling and using imperfect context information , 2004, IEEE Annual Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops, 2004. Proceedings of the Second.

[6]  Xavier Le Pallec,et al.  From Metamodeling to Automatic Generation of Multimodal Interfaces for Ambient Computing , 2011 .

[7]  Sjaak Brinkkemper,et al.  Complexity Metrics for Systems Development Methods and Techniques , 1996, Inf. Syst..

[8]  Thomas R. G. Green,et al.  Cognitive dimensions of notations , 1990 .

[9]  Isabelle Comyn-Wattiau,et al.  Data quality through model quality: a quality model for measuring and improving the understandability of conceptual models , 2009, CIKM 2009.

[10]  Steven Kelly,et al.  Worst Practices for Domain-Specific Modeling , 2009, IEEE Software.

[11]  Geert Poels,et al.  Evaluating Quality of Conceptual Models Based on User Perceptions , 2006, ER.

[12]  Arne Sølvberg,et al.  Understanding quality in conceptual modeling , 1994, IEEE Software.

[13]  Xavier Le Pallec,et al.  Supporting Generic Methodologies to Assist IMS-LD Modeling , 2006, Sixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'06).

[14]  Emmanuel Dubois,et al.  ASUR++: A Design Notation for Mobile Mixed Systems , 2002, Mobile HCI.

[15]  Daniel Amyot,et al.  Analysing the Cognitive Effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 Visual Notation , 2010, SLE.

[16]  Wei Tang,et al.  Meta Object Facility , 2009, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[17]  Eelco Visser,et al.  The Spoofax language workbench , 2010, SPLASH/OOPSLA Companion.

[18]  Sophie Dupuy-Chessa,et al.  Evaluating Choreographies in BPMN 2.0 Using an Extended Quality Framework , 2011, BPMN.

[19]  John J. Bertin,et al.  The semiology of graphics , 1983 .

[20]  Xavier Le Pallec,et al.  Bricolage and Model Driven Approach to design distant course , 2005 .

[21]  Jean Vanderdonckt,et al.  Evaluating a graphical notation for modelling software development methodologies , 2012, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[22]  Leysia Palen,et al.  Beyond the handset: designing for wireless communications usability , 2002, TCHI.

[23]  John Krogstie,et al.  Integrating the understanding of quality in requirements specification and conceptual modeling , 1998, SOEN.

[24]  Jeffrey Parsons,et al.  How UML is used , 2006, CACM.

[25]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.