Comparison of the Two-Hemisphere Model-Driven Approach to Other Methods for Model-Driven Software Development

Oksana Nikiforova; Ludmila Kozacenko; Dace Ahilcenoka; Konstantins Gusarovs; Dainis Ungurs; Maris Jukss

doi:10.1515/acss-2015-0013

Abstract

Models are widely used not only in computer science field, but also in other fields. They are an effective way to show relevant information in a convenient way. Model-driven software development uses models and transformations as first-class citizens. That makes software development phases more related to each other, those links later help to make changes or modify software product more freely. At the moment there are a lot of methods and techniques to create those models and transform them into each other. Since 2004, authors have been developing the so called 2HMD approach to bridge the gap between problem domain and software components by using models and model transformation. The goal of this research is to compare different methods positioned for performing the same tasks as the 2HMD approach and to understand the state of the art in the area of model-driven software development.

References

[1] Haigh, T., “Crisis, What Crisis? Reconsidering the Software Crisis of the 1960s and the Origins of Software Engineering,” Thomas Haigh, 2011. Available: http://www.tomandmaria.com/tom/Writing/SoftwareCrisis_SofiaDRAFT.pdf
Search in Google Scholar
[2] Jones, C., “Software Quality in 2012: A Survey of the State of the Art,” Software Quality Group of New England, 2012. Available: http://sqgne.org/2012-13.html
Search in Google Scholar
[3] Stahl, T., Volter, M., Bettin, J., Haase, A., et al. Model-Driven Software Development: Technology, Engineering, Management, 1 ed. USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2006. 446 p.
Search in Google Scholar
[4] Loniewski, G., Insfran, E., Abrah, S. “A Systematic Review of the Use of Requirements Engineering Techniques in Model-Driven Development,” in Proc. of 13th Int. Conf. MODELS 2010, Norway, Oslo, October 3-8, II part. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 213–227, 2010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16129-2_16
Search in Google Scholar
[5] Sharifi, H.R., Mohsenzadeh, M., Hashemi, S.M., “CIM to PIM Transformation: An Analytical Survey,” IJ of Computer Technology & Applications, vol. 3, pp.791–796, 2012.
Search in Google Scholar
[6] Kriouile, A., Gadi, T., Balouki, Y., “IM to PIM Transformation: A criteria Based Evaluation,” IJ of Computer Technology & Applications, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 616–625, 2013.
Search in Google Scholar
[7] Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., “Feature-Based Survey of Model Transformation Approaches,” IBM Systems Journal-Model-driven software development, vol. 45, pp. 621–645, 2006.10.1147/sj.453.0621
Search in Google Scholar
[8] Mens, T., Gorp, P.V., “A Taxonomy of Model Transformations,” Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS). vol. 152, pp. 125–42, 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2005.10.021
Search in Google Scholar
[9] Lano, K., Kolahdouz-Rahimi, S., Poernomo, I., “Comparative Evaluation of Model Transformation Specification Approaches,” IJ of Software and Informatics, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 233–269, 2012.
Search in Google Scholar
[10] Chapin, N., Flowcharts. New York, USA: Petrocelli Books, 1971
Search in Google Scholar
[11] Stevens, W., Myers, G., Constantine, L., “Structured Design,” IBM Systems Journal, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 115–139, 1974. http://dx.doi.org/10.1147/sj.132.0115
Search in Google Scholar
[12] Chen, P.P., “The Entity-Relationship Model: Toward a Unified View of Data,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, vol. 1, pp. 9–36, 1976.10.1145/320434.320440
Search in Google Scholar
[13] OMG, OMG Unified Modelling Language^TM (OMG UML), Superstructure. OMG, 2014. Available: http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/Superstructure/PDF
Search in Google Scholar
[14] Guttman, M., Parodi, J., Real-Life MDA. 1st ed. USA: Morgan Kaufmann, 224 p., 2007.
Search in Google Scholar
[15] Brambilla, M., Cabot, J., Wimmer, M., Model-Driven Software Engineering in Practice. 1st ed. USA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 182 p., 2012.10.2200/S00441ED1V01Y201208SWE001
Search in Google Scholar
[16] Nikiforova, O., Kirikova, M., “Two-Hemisphere Model-Driven Approach: Engineering Based Software Development.” in Proc. of 16th International Conference, CAiSE 2004, Riga, Latvia, June 7–11, vol. 3084. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 219–233, 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25975-6_17
Search in Google Scholar
[17] Nikiforova, O., “General Framework for Object-Oriented Software Development Process,” in Scientific Proc. of RTU. Computer Sciences, vol. 13, pp. 132–144, 2002.
Search in Google Scholar
[18] Gartner Predicts 2002: Top 10 Predictions, Gartner, 2002.10.5465/apbpp.2002.7516614
Search in Google Scholar
[19] Anderson, J.R., Cognitive psychology and its implications, Worth Publishers, 469 p., 2010.
Search in Google Scholar
[20] Nikiforova, O., Kirikova, M., Pavlova, N., “Two-Hemisphere Driven Approach: Application for Knowledge Modelling,” in Proc. of the Seventh International Baltic Conf. on Databases and Information Systems, (Baltic DB&IS 2006), O. Vasilecas, J. Eder, A. Caplinskas (eds.), Lithuania, Vilnius, 3–6 July, IEEE, pp. 244–250, 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/DBIS.2006.1678503
Search in Google Scholar
[21] Nikiforova, O., Pavlova, N., Grigorjevs, J., “Several Facilities of Class Diagram Generation from Two-Hemisphere Model in the Framework of MDA,” in Proc. of the 23rd International Symposium on Computer and Information Science, Istanbul, Turkey, October 27–29, p. 6., 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/iscis.2008.4717956
Search in Google Scholar
[22] Nikiforova, O., “System Modelling in UML with Two-Hemisphere Model Driven Approach,” Scientific Journal of RTU. Computer Sciences. 2010, vol. 21, pp. 37–44.
Search in Google Scholar
[23] Nikiforova, O., Gusarovs, K., Gorbiks, O., Pavlova N., “BrainTool A Tool for Generation of the UML Class Diagrams,” in Proc. of the 7th International Conference on Software Engineering Advances, Lisbon, Portugal, 18-23 Novemer, IARIA, 60-69.lpp (2012)
Search in Google Scholar
[24] JGraph. jGraph-connectiong the dots. Available: http://www.jgraph.com/
Search in Google Scholar
[25] Nikiforova, O., Kozacenko, L., Ungurs, D., Ahilcenoka, D., Bajovs, A., Skindre, N., Gusarovs, K., “BrainTool for Software Modelling in UML,” Scientific Journal of RTU: Applied Computer Systems, Grundspenkis J. et al. (Eds), vol. 16, pp. 33–42, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/acss-2014-0011
Search in Google Scholar
[26] Nikiforova, O., Ahilcenoka, D., Ungurs, D., Gusarovs, K., Kozacenko, L., “Several Issues on the Layout of the UML Sequence and Class Diagram,” in Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on Software Eng. Advances, Mannaert H. et. al (Eds), October 12–16, Nice, France, IARIA, pp. 40–47, 2014.
Search in Google Scholar
[27] Polak, P., “BPMN Impact on Process Modelling,” in Proc. of the 2nd International Business and Systems Conference BSC, Riga, Latvia, November 5, pp. 26–35, 2013.10.7250/bsc.2013.4
Search in Google Scholar
[28] Harmon, P, Wolf, C.: The State of Business Process Management, BPTrends, 2014. Available: http://www.bptrends.com/
Search in Google Scholar
[29] Johnason, J., Henderson, A., Conceptual Models. Core to Good Design, 1st ed. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2011. 110 p.10.2200/S00391ED1V01Y201111HCI012
Search in Google Scholar
[30] Hesse, W., “Ontologies in the Software Engineering process,” in Proc. of the 12th Int. Workshop on Exploring Modelling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design, (EMMSAD-2007), Trondheim, Norway, 11–15 June, pp. 1–13, 2007.
Search in Google Scholar
[31] Graudina, V., Grundspenkis, J., “Algorithm of Concept Map Transformation to Ontology for Usage in Intelligent Knowledge Assessment System,” in Proc. of the 12th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies, Vienna, Austria, June 16–17, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2023607.2023627
Search in Google Scholar
[32] Mädche, A., Schnurr, H.P., Staab, S., Studer, R., “Representation-Language-Neutral Modelling of Ontologies,” J. Ebert, U. Frank (Hrsg.): Modelle und Modellierungssprachen in Informatik und Wirtschaftsinformatik. Proc. “Modellierung 2000”. Koblenz: Fölbach-Verlag, pp. 143–150, 2000.
Search in Google Scholar
[33] OMG, Business Process Model and Notation, Available: http://www.bpmn.org/
Search in Google Scholar
[34] RTU, BrainTool webpage, Available: http://braintool.rtu.lv
Search in Google Scholar
[35] Dobing, B., Parsons, J., “How UML is used,” Communications of the ACM. May 2006, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 109–113, 2006.10.1145/1125944.1125949
Search in Google Scholar
[36] Eiglsperger, M., “Automatic Layout of UML Class Diagrams: A Topology-Shape-Metrics Approach,” Thesis. Tübingen, Germany: Eberhard Karls Universitat, p. 173, 2003.
Search in Google Scholar
[37] Dwyer, T., “Three dimensional UML using force directed layout. Australian Symposium on Information Visualisation,” Australian Computer Society, Inc, pp. 77–85, 2001.
Search in Google Scholar
[38] Siqueira, F. L., Silva, P. S. M., “Analyzing CIM to PIM Transformations Using the WRSPM model,” in Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Advanced Communications and Computation, Venice, Italy, October 21–26, IARIA, pp. 41–50, 2012.
Search in Google Scholar
[39] Al-Jamini, H., Ahmed, M., “Transition from Analysis to Software Design: A Review and New Perspective,” in Proc. of Int. Conf. on Soft Computing and Software Engineering, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 169–176, 2013.
Search in Google Scholar

Comparison of the Two-Hemisphere Model-Driven Approach to Other Methods for Model-Driven Software Development

Abstract

Paradigm

My account