A framework for reviewing domain specific conceptual models

Conceptual models are used in understanding and communicating the domain of interest during analysis phase of system development. As they are used in early phases, errors and omissions may propagate to later phases and may be very costly to correct. This paper proposes a framework for evaluating conceptual models when represented in a domain specific language based on UML constructs. The framework describes the main aspects to be considered when conceptual models are represented in a domain specific language, presents a classification of semantic issues and some evaluation indicators. The indicators can, in principle, identify situations in the models where inconsistencies or incompleteness might occur. Whether these are real concerns might depend on domain semantics, hence these are semantic, not syntactic checks. The use of the proposed review framework is illustrated in the context of two conceptual models in a domain specific notation, KAMA. With reviews based on the framework, it is possible to spot semantic issues which are not noticed by case tools and help the analyst to identify more information about the domain.

[1]  Tadao Murata,et al.  Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications , 1989, Proc. IEEE.

[2]  Parastoo Mohagheghi,et al.  Definitions and approaches to model quality in model-based software development - A review of literature , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[3]  Joerg Evermann,et al.  Ontology based object-oriented domain modelling: fundamental concepts , 2005, Requirements Engineering.

[4]  D. Pace Ideas About Simulation Conceptual Model Development , 2000 .

[5]  Bernd Westphal,et al.  The Rhapsody UML Verification Environment , 2004, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, 2004. SEFM 2004..

[6]  Alexander Egyed,et al.  Instant consistency checking for the UML , 2006, ICSE.

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

[8]  Rik Eshuis,et al.  Tool support for verifying UML activity diagrams , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[9]  MuDer Jeng,et al.  Management and control of information flow in CIM systems using UML and Petri nets , 2005, Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf..

[10]  John Krogstie,et al.  Defining quality aspects for conceptual models , 1995, ISCO.

[11]  Lionel C. Briand,et al.  Impact analysis and change management of UML models , 2003, International Conference on Software Maintenance, 2003. ICSM 2003. Proceedings..

[12]  Scott W. Ambler,et al.  The Elements of UML(TM) 2.0 Style , 2005 .

[13]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Reasoning on UML class diagrams , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[14]  John Krogstie,et al.  Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[15]  Holger Giese,et al.  A Plug-In for Flexible and Incremental Consistency Management , 2003 .

[16]  Keith Ford,et al.  The Euclid RTP 11.13 Synthetic Environment Development and Exploitation Process (SEDEP) , 2005, Virtual Reality.

[17]  Brian Berenbach,et al.  The evaluation of large, complex UML analysis and design models , 2004, Proceedings. 26th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[18]  José Ambrosio Toval Álvarez,et al.  A systematic review of UML model consistency management , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[19]  Bhuvan Unhelkar Verification and Validation for Quality of UML 2.0 Models , 2005 .

[20]  David A. Carrington,et al.  A Formal Mapping between UML Models and Object-Z Specifications , 2000, ZB.

[21]  Forrest Shull,et al.  The empirical investigation of Perspective-Based Reading , 1995, Empirical Software Engineering.