Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the quality of metamodels

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Computer Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The complexity and diversity of modern software demands a variety of metamodel-based modeling languages for software development. Existing languages change continuously, and new ones are constantly emerging. In this situation, and especially for metamodel-based modeling languages, a quality assurance mechanism for metamodels is needed. This paper presents an approach to assessing the quality of metamodels. A quality model, which systematically characterizes and classifies quality attributes, and an operable measuring mechanism for effectively assessing the quality of metamodels based on the quality model, are presented, using UML as the main example.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. OMG. Unified modeling language. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kobryn C. Will UML 2.0 be agile or awkward? Communications of the ACM, 2002, 45(1): 107–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Henderson-Sellers B. UML — the good, the bad or the ugly? Perspectives from a panel of experts. Software System Model, 2005, 4(1): 4–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dori D. Why significant UML change is unlikely. Communications of the ACM, 2002, 5(11): 82–85

    Google Scholar 

  5. Haerl D, Rumpe B. Meaningful modeling: what’s the semantics of “semantics”? IEEE Computer, 2004, 37(10): 64–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ma Z Y, Zhao J F, Meng X W, Zhang W J. Research and implementation of jade bird object-oriented software modeling tool. Journal of Software, 2003, 14(1): 97–102

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Ma Z Y, Jiang Y B, Li J Y, Dai Y F. Research and implementation of software modeling tool based on UML. ACTA Electronica Sinica, 2002, 12(A): 2049–2051

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ma Z Y, Ma H H, Zhang N B, Lao Z P, Zhu Z G. Development of the software development platform based on UML2.0. Journal of Nanjing University, 2005, 41(z1): 374–381

    Google Scholar 

  9. Atkinson C, Kuhne T. The essence of multilevel metamodeling. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language. LNCS 2185, 2001, 19–33

    Google Scholar 

  10. Harel D, Rumpe B. Modeling languages: syntax, semantics and all that stuff. Technical Paper Number MCS00-16. 2000

    Google Scholar 

  11. OMG. Object constraint language, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  12. OMG. Common warehouse metamodel V 1.1. 2003

    Google Scholar 

  13. OMG. Systems modeling language V1.2. 2010

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fuentes J M, Quintana V, Llorens J, Génova G, Prieto-Dáz R. Errors in the UML metamodel. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 2003, 28(6): 1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kobryn C. UML 3.0 and the future of modeling. Software and Systems Modeling, 2004, 3(1): 4–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. IBM. UML 2.0 profile for software services: http://www-28.ibm.com/developmentworks/rational/library/05/419_soa/, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  17. OMG. Business process modeling notation, V1.1. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/1.1/PDF, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  18. Selic B, Ramackers G, Kobryn C. Evolution, not revolution. Communications of the ACM, 2002, 45(11): 70–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Weigert T. UML 2.0 RFI response overview. OMG Document ad/00-01-07, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  20. Douglass B P. UML for systems engineering. Computer Design’s: Electronic Systems Technology and Design, 1998, 37(11): 44–49

    Google Scholar 

  21. Siau K, Cao Q. How complex is the unified modeling language? Advanced Topics in Database Research, 2002, 1: 294–306

    Google Scholar 

  22. ISO/IEC. Information technology-software product quality. ISO-IEC Standard 9126, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  23. OMG. Meta object facility 2.0, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wand Y, Weber R. An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Transaction of Software Engineering, 1990, 16(11): 1282–1292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. ISO/IEC. Standard for Information technology—software product evaluation—part 1: general overview. ISO/IEC 14598-1, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bansiya J, Davis C G. A hierarchical model for object-oriented design quality assessment. IEEE Transaction of Software Engineering, 2002, 28(1): 4–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Unhelkar B. Verification and validation for quality of UML 2.0models. A Wiley-Inter Science Publication, 2005

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Miller G A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 1956, 63: 81–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bendraou R, Jézéquel J M, Gervais M P, Blanc X. A comparison of six uml-based languages for software process modeling. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2010, 36(5): 662–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bertolino A, Angelis G D, Sandro A D, Sabetta A. Is my model right? Let me ask the expert. Journal of Systems and Software, 2011, 84(7): 1089–1099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Moody D L. The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2009, 35(6): 756–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu H, Ma Z Y, Shao W Z. Progress of research on metamodeling. Journal of Software, 2008, 19(6): 1317–1327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lindland O I, Sindre G, Sølvberg A. Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software, 1994,11(2): 42–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bansiya J. Evaluating framework architecture structural stability. ACM Computer Survey, 2000, 32(1es): 18–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mattsson M, Bosch J. Characterizing stability in evolving frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems. 1999, 118–130

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bolloju N, Leung F S K. Assisting novice analysts in developing quality conceptual models with UML. Communication of ACM, 2006, 49(7): 108–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hmood A, Keivanloo I, Rilling J. SE-EQUAM-an evolvable quality metamodel. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Computer Software and Applications Workshops, 2012, 334–339

    Google Scholar 

  38. Klint P, LäMmel R, Verhoef C. Toward an engineering discipline for grammarware. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2005, 14(3): 331–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Shan L J, Zhu H. Unifying the semantics of models and meta-models in the multi-layered UML meta-modelling hierarchy. International Journal of Software and Informatics, 2012, 6(2): 163–200

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sun D B, Wong K. On evaluating the layout of UML class diagrams for program comprehension. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Program Comprehension, 2005, 317-326

  41. Ma H H, Shao W Z, Zhang L, Ma Z Y, Jiang Y B. Applying OO metrics to assess UML meta-models. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of UML. 2004, 12–26

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Software Institute, School of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China

    Zhiyi Ma

  2. Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of High Confidence Software Technologies (Peking University), Beijing, 100871, China

    Zhiyi Ma & Xiao He

  3. School of Computer and Communication Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, 100083, China

    Xiao He

  4. School of Economics, Shandong University of Finance and Economics, Jinan, 250202, China

    Chao Liu

Authors
  1. Zhiyi Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiao He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chao Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhiyi Ma.

Additional information

Zhiyi Ma received his PhD in computer science in 1999. His research interests focus on metamodeling technology, software modeling methods, and software engineering environments. He is the author of 6 books and more than 100 publications in journals and conferences. He received the Second Prize of China National Science and Technology Progress Award and several special contribution awards of China National Ministries and Commissions.

Xiao He received his PhD in computer science from Peking University in 2012, and now is a post-doctoral researcher in the University of Science and Technology Beijing. He is interested in software modeling, metamodeling, and model transformation.

Chao Liu received his PhD in management, and pursued postdoctoral research in finance. He has been a professor possessing special allowance from the State Council and a member of Excellent Talents Support Program launched by Ministry of Education, China. He has successively presided over projects of the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the China National Social Science Fund, and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Scientific Research Projects.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ma, Z., He, X. & Liu, C. Assessing the quality of metamodels. Front. Comput. Sci. 7, 558–570 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-013-1151-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-013-1151-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation