On using Sarkar Metrics to Evaluate the Modularity of Metamodels

Georg Hinkel, Misha Strittmatter

Abstract

As model-driven engineering (MDE) gets applied for the development of larger systems, the quality assurance of model-driven artifacts gets more important. Here, metamodels are particularly important as many other artifacts depend on them. Existing approaches to measure the modularity of metamodels have not been validated for metamodels thoroughly. In this paper, we evaluate the usage of the metrics suggested by Sarkar et al. to automatically measure the modularity of metamodels with the goal of automated quality improvements. For this, we analyze the data from a previous controlled experiment on the perception of metamodel quality with 24 participants, including both students and academic professionals. From the results, we were able to statistically disprove even a slight correlation with perceived metamodel quality.

References

  1. Bertoa, M. F. and Vallecillo, A. (2010). Quality attributes for software metamodels. In Proceedings of the 13th TOOLS Workshop on Quantitative Approaches in Object-Oriented Software Engineering (QAOOSE 2010).
  2. Bureš, T., Hnetynka, P., and Plášil, F. (2006). Sofa 2.0: Balancing advanced features in a hierarchical component model. In Proceedings of the fourth International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications, pages 40-48. IEEE.
  3. Di Rocco, J., Di Ruscio, D., Iovino, L., and Pierantonio, A. (2014). Mining metrics for understanding metamodel characteristics. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering, MiSE 2014, pages 55-60, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  4. Fouquet, F., Nain, G., Morin, B., Daubert, E., Barais, O., Plouzeau, N., and Jézéquel, J.-M. (2014). Kevoree Modeling Framework (KMF): Efficient modeling techniques for runtime use. Technical report, SnTUniversity of Luxembourg.
  5. Hinkel, G., Groenda, H., Krach, S., Vannucci, L., Denninger, O., Cauli, N., Ulbrich, S., Roennau, A., Falotico, E., Gewaltig, M.-O., Knoll, A., Dillmann, R., Laschi, C., and Reussner, R. (2016a). A Framework for Coupled Simulations of Robots and Spiking Neuronal Networks. Journal of Intelligent & Robotics Systems.
  6. Hinkel, G., Groenda, H., Vannucci, L., Denninger, O., Cauli, N., and Ulbrich, S. (2015). A Domain-Specific Language (DSL) for Integrating Neuronal Networks in Robot Control. In 2015 Joint MORSE/VAO Workshop on Model-Driven Robot Software Engineering and View-based Software-Engineering.
  7. Hinkel, G., Kramer, M., Burger, E., Strittmatter, M., and Happe, L. (2016b). An Empirical Study on the Perception of Metamodel Quality. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-driven Engineering and Software Development (MODELSWARD). Scitepress.
  8. Kramer, M. E., Durdik, Z., Hauck, M., Henss, J., Küster, M., Merkle, P., and Rentschler, A. (2012). Extending the Palladio Component Model using Profiles and Stereotypes. In Becker, S., Happe, J., Koziolek, A., and Reussner, R., editors, Palladio Days 2012 Proceedings (appeared as technical report), Karlsruhe Reports in Informatics ; 2012,21, pages 7-15, Karlsruhe. KIT, Faculty of Informatics.
  9. Lehman, M., Ramil, J., Wernick, P., Perry, D., and Turski, W. (1997). Metrics and laws of software evolution-the nineties view. In Software Metrics Symposium, 1997. Proceedings., Fourth International, pages 20-32.
  10. Lehman, M. M. (1974). Programs, cities, students: Limits to growth? (Inaugural lecture - Imperial College of Science and Technology ; 1974). Imperial College of Science and Technology, University of London.
  11. Leitner, A., Weiß, R., and Kreiner, C. (2012). Analyzing the complexity of domain model representations. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference and Workshops on Engineering of Computer Based Systems (ECBS), pages 242-248.
  12. López-Fernández, J. J., Guerra, E., and de Lara, J. (2014). Assessing the quality of meta-models. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Model Driven Engineering, Verification and Validation (MoDeVVa), page 3.
  13. Ma, Z., He, X., and Liu, C. (2013). Assessing the quality of metamodels. Frontiers of Computer Science, 7(4):558-570.
  14. Mendling, J. and Neumann, G. (2007). Error metrics for business process models. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pages 53-56.
  15. Mendling, J., Neumann, G., and Van Der Aalst, W. (2007). Understanding the occurrence of errors in process models based on metrics. In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2007: CoopIS, DOA, ODBASE, GADA, and IS, pages 113-130. Springer.
  16. Sánchez-González, L., García, F., Mendling, J., Ruiz, F., and Piattini, M. (2010). Prediction of business process model quality based on structural metrics. In Conceptual Modeling-ER 2010, pages 458-463. Springer.
  17. Sarkar, S., Kak, A. C., and Rama, G. M. (2008). Metrics for measuring the quality of modularization of largescale object-oriented software. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 34(5):700-720.
  18. The Object Management Group (2011). Business process model and notation 2.0. http://www.bpmn.org/.
  19. Vanderfeesten, I., Cardoso, J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., and van der Aalst, W. (2007). Quality metrics for business process models. BPM and Workflow handbook , 144.
  20. Vanderfeesten, I., Reijers, H. A., Mendling, J., van der Aalst, W. M., and Cardoso, J. (2008). On a quest for good process models: the cross-connectivity metric. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pages 480-494. Springer.
  21. Williams, J. R., Zolotas, A., Matragkas, N. D., Rose, L. M., Kolovos, D. S., Paige, R. F., and Polack, F. A. (2013). What do metamodels really look like? In Proceedings of the first international Workshop on Experiences and Empirical Studies in Software Modelling (EESSMod), pages 55-60.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Hinkel G. and Strittmatter M. (2017). On using Sarkar Metrics to Evaluate the Modularity of Metamodels . In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD, ISBN 978-989-758-210-3, pages 253-260. DOI: 10.5220/0006105502530260


in Bibtex Style

@conference{modelsward17,
author={Georg Hinkel and Misha Strittmatter},
title={On using Sarkar Metrics to Evaluate the Modularity of Metamodels},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,},
year={2017},
pages={253-260},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0006105502530260},
isbn={978-989-758-210-3},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,
TI - On using Sarkar Metrics to Evaluate the Modularity of Metamodels
SN - 978-989-758-210-3
AU - Hinkel G.
AU - Strittmatter M.
PY - 2017
SP - 253
EP - 260
DO - 10.5220/0006105502530260