Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/137351
COMPARTIR / EXPORTAR:
logo share SHARE BASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE

Invitar a revisión por pares abierta
Campo DC Valor Lengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorHenderson-Sellers, Brian-
dc.contributor.authorQureshi, Muhammad Atif-
dc.contributor.authorGonzález-Pérez, César-
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-27T07:00:45Z-
dc.date.available2016-09-27T07:00:45Z-
dc.date.issued2012-
dc.identifierissn: 1673-7288-
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Software and Informatics 6(2): 111-124 (2012)-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/137351-
dc.description.abstractIn recent years, many metamodels have been introduced in the software engineering literature and standards. These metamodels vary in their focus across, for example, process, product, organizational and measurement aspects of software development and have typically been developed independently of each other with shared concepts being only accidental. There is thus an increasing concern in the standards communities that possible conflicts of structure and semantics between these various metamodels will hinder their widespread adoption. The complexity of these metamodels has also increased significantly and is another barrier in their appreciation. This complexity is compounded when more than one metamodel is used in the lifecycle of a software project. Therefore there is a need to have interoperable metamodels. As a first step towards engendering interoperability and/or possible mergers between metamodels, we examine the size and complexity of various meta-models. To do this, we have used the Rossi and Brinkkemper metrics-based approach to evaluate the size and complexity of several standard metamodels including UML 2.3, BPMN 2.0, ODM, SMM and OSM. The size and complexity of these metamodels is also compared with the previous version of UML, BPMN and Activity diagrams. The comparatively large sizes of BPMN 2.0 and UML 2.3 suggest that future integration with these metamodels might be more di±cult than with the other metamodels under study (especially ODM, SSM and OSM).-
dc.description.sponsorshipThe first author wishes to acknowledge support from the Australian Research Council.-
dc.publisherChinese Academy of Sciences-
dc.rightsclosedAccess-
dc.subjectInteroperability-
dc.subjectComplexity-
dc.subjectSize-
dc.subjectMetamodel-
dc.subjectSMM-
dc.subjectBPMN-
dc.subjectUML-
dc.subjectODM-
dc.subjectOSM-
dc.titleTowards an Interoperable Metamodel Suite: Size Assessment as One Input-
dc.typeartículo-
dc.date.updated2016-09-27T07:00:46Z-
dc.description.versionPeer Reviewed-
dc.language.rfc3066eng-
dc.contributor.funderAustralian Research Council-
dc.relation.csic-
dc.identifier.funderhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000923es_ES
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501es_ES
item.openairetypeartículo-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
Aparece en las colecciones: (INCIPIT) Artículos
Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción Tamaño Formato
accesoRestringido.pdf15,38 kBAdobe PDFVista previa
Visualizar/Abrir
Show simple item record

CORE Recommender

Page view(s)

205
checked on 28-mar-2024

Download(s)

56
checked on 28-mar-2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


NOTA: Los ítems de Digital.CSIC están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.