Modelling software development methodologies: A conceptual foundation

ABSTRACT

Current modelling approaches often purport to be based on a strong theoretical underpinning but, in fact, contain many ill-defined concepts or even contradictions leading to potential misinterpretation. Although much modelling in object-oriented contexts is focussed on the use of the Unified Modelling Language (UML), this paper presents a technology-agnostic approach that analyses the basic concepts of structural models and modelling in software engineering, using an approach based on representation theory. We examine the different kinds of interpretive mappings (either isotypical, prototypical or metatypical) that are required in order to trace model entities back to the SUS (subject under study) entities that they represent. The difference between forward- and backward-looking models is also explained, as are issues relating to the appropriate definition of modelling languages in general based on representation theory. The need for product and process integration in methodologies is then addressed, leading to the conclusion that a mesh of verbal plus nominal nodes is necessary in any methodology metamodel. Finally, the need for a common, cross-cutting modelling infrastructure is established, and a solution proposed in the form of an ontologically universal modelling language, OOLang. Examples of the application of these theoretical analyses to the suite of OMG products (particularly SPEM, UML and MOF) are given throughout, with the hope that awareness of the importance of a better modelling infrastructure can be developed.

REFERENCES

• Alexander et al., 1977.: A Pattern Language. Oxford University Press, New York.
• ANSI, 1989.: American National Standards Institute, 1989. X3.138. Information Resource Dictionary System.
• Atkinson, 1998.: Colin Atkinson, Supporting and Applying the UML Conceptual Framework, Selected papers from the First International Workshop on The Unified Modeling Language «UML»'98: Beyond the Notation, p.21-36, June 03-04, 1998
• Atkinson and K$#252;hne, 2001a.: Colin Atkinson , Thomas Kühne, The Essence of Multilevel Metamodeling, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language, Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools, p.19-33, October 01-05, 2001
• Atkinson and K$#252;hne, 2001b.: Processes and products in a multi-level metamodeling architecture. Int. J. Software Eng. Knowledge Eng. v11. 761-783.
• Atkinson and K$#252;hne, 2002.: Colin Atkinson , Thomas Kühne, Rearchitecting the UML infrastructure, ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS), v.12 n.4, p.290-321, October 2002 [doi>10.1145/643120.643123]
• Atkinson and K$#252;hne, 2003.: Colin Atkinson , Thomas Kühne, Model-Driven Development: A Metamodeling Foundation, IEEE Software, v.20 n.5, p.36-41, September 2003 [doi>10.1109/MS.2003.1231149]
• Atkinson et al., 2000.: To meta or not to meta - that is the question. J. Object-Oriented Programm. v13. 25-32.
• Barkow et al., 1992.: The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Oxford University Press, New York.
• B$#233;zivin, 2005.: On the unification power of models. Software Syst. Modell. v4. 171-188.
• Brinkkemper, 1996.: Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Inform. Software Technol. v38. 275-280.
• Bunge, 1977.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy - Ontology I: The Furniture of the World. Reidel, Boston, MA.
• Bunge, 1979.: Treatise on Basic Philosophy - Ontology II: A World of Systems. Reidel, Boston, MA.
• Davies et al., 2004.: Conceptual modelling - what and why in current practice. In: LNCS, vol. 3288. Springer-Verlag. pp. 30-42.
• Dolk and Kirsch, 1987.: Daniel R Dolk , Robert A. Kirsch, II, A relational information resource dictionary system, Communications of the ACM, v.30 n.1, p.48-61, Jan. 1987 [doi>10.1145/7885.7888]
• Eriksson and Penker, 1998.: Hans-Erik Eriksson , Magnus Penker, UML toolkit, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1997
• Favre, 2005.: Favre, J.-M., 2005. Foundations of model (driven) (reverse) engineering: models; Episode I: Stories of The Fidus Papyrus and of The Solarus. In: Seminar 04101 "Language Engineering for Model-Driven Software Development", Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings Internationales Begegnungs.
• Firesmith and Henderson-Sellers, 2002.: The OPEN Process Framework. Addison-Wesley, London.
• Fowler and Kendall, 2000.: UML Distilled. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
• Gonzalez-Perez, 2002.: Sistemas de Información para Arqueologı¿a: Teorı¿a, Metodologı¿a y Tecnologı¿as. Spring, Oxford, UK.
• Gonzalez-Perez, 2005.: Cesar Gonzalez-Perez, Tools for an Extended Object Modelling Environment, Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, p.20-23, June 16-20, 2005 [doi>10.1109/ICECCS.2005.80]
• Gonzalez-Perez and Henderson-Sellers, 2005a.: A representation-theoretical analysis of the OMG modelling suite. In: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 129. IOS Press, Amsterdam. pp. 252-262.
• Gonzalez-Perez and Henderson-Sellers, 2005b.: Templates and resources in software development methodologies. J. Object Technol. v4. 173-190.
• Gonzalez-Perez and Henderson-Sellers, 2006.: A powertype-based metamodelling framework. Software Syst. Modell. v5. 72-90.
• Greenfield and Short, 2004.: Software Factories. John Wiley & Sons.
• Guizzardi et al., 2002.: Giancarlo Guizzardi , Heinrich Herre , Gerd Wagner, On the General Ontological Foundations of Conceptual Modeling, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, p.65-78, October 07-11, 2002
• Harkema, 1995.: Harkema, H., 1995. Automatic detection and correction of syntax errors in tutoring systems for language instruction. In: Sixth Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Meeting. UIA Center for Dutch Language and Speech, Antwerp, Belgium.
• Henderson-Sellers, 1992.: A Book of Object-Oriented Knowledge. Prentice-Hall, New York.
• Henderson-Sellers and Gonzalez-Perez, 2005.: Brian Henderson-Sellers , Cesar Gonzalez-Perez, The rationale of powertype-based metamodelling to underpin software development methodologies, Proceedings of the 2nd Asia-Pacific conference on Conceptual modelling, p.7-16, January 01, 2005, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
• ISO/IEC, 1998.: International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission, 1998. ISO/IEC 15474-1. CDIF Framework - Part 1: Overview.
• ISO/IEC, 2007.: International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission, 2007. ISO/IEC 24744. Software Engineering - Metamodel for Development Methodologies.
• Jackson, 2002.: Some basic tenets of description. Software Syst. Modell. v1. 5-9.
• Kobryn, 2004.: UML 3.0 and the future of modeling. Software Syst. Modell. v3. 4-8.
• K$#252;hne, 2005.: Kühne, T., 2005. What is a model? In: Seminar 04101 Language Engineering for Model-Driven Software Development, Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings Internationales Begegnungs.
• Lakoff, 1990.: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. University of Chicago Press.
• Ludewig, 2003.: Models in software engineering - an introduction. Software Syst. Modell. v2. 5-14.
• Martin and Odell, 1992.: Object-Oriented Analysis and Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
• Meyer, 1997.: Bertrand Meyer, Object-oriented software construction (2nd ed.), Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997
• OMG, 2002.: Object Management Group, 2002. Formal/2002-04-03. Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification, version 1.4.
• OMG, 2003a.: OMG, 2003a. MDA Guide, Object Management Group.
• OMG, 2003b.: Object Management Group, 2003b. Formal/03-03-01. Unified Modelling Language Specification, version 1.5.
• OMG, 2004.: Object Management Group, 2004. ptc/04-10-14. Unified Modelling Language Specification: Infrastructure, version 2.
• OMG, 2005a.: Object Management Group, 2005a. formal/05-01-06. Software Process Engineering Metamodel Specification, version 1.1.
• OMG, 2005b.: Object Management Group, 2005b. formal/05-07-04. Unified Modelling Language Specification: Superstructure, version 2.
• Peterson, 1996.: Peterson, D. (Ed.), 1996. Forms of Representation, Intellect, Exeter, UK.
• Rolland, 2005.: Modelling multi-facetted purposes of artefacts. In: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 129. IOS Press, Amsterdam. pp. 3-17.
• SA, 2004.: Standards Australia, 2004. Standard Metamodel for Software Development Methodologies.
• Sabetzadeh and Easterbrook, 2005.: Mehrdad Sabetzadeh , Steve Easterbrook, An Algebraic Framework for Merging Incomplete and Inconsistent Views, Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, p.306-318, August 29-September 02, 2005 [doi>10.1109/RE.2005.8]
• Seidewitz, 2003.: Ed Seidewitz, What Models Mean, IEEE Software, v.20 n.5, p.26-32, September 2003 [doi>10.1109/MS.2003.1231147]
• Stachowiak, 1973.: Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Springer-Verlag, Wien.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.9 Management
          Subjects: Software process models (e.g., CMM, ISO, PSP)

Additional Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.6 MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
      K.6.3 Software Management
          Subjects: Software development; Software process

General Terms:
Design, Management

Keywords:
Metamodelling, Modelling, Software development methodologies, Theoretical basis