A technique for evaluating and improving the semantic transparency of modeling language notations

Abstract

The notation of a modeling language is of paramount importance for its efficient use and the correct comprehension of created models. A graphical notation, especially for domain-specific modeling languages, should therefore be aligned to the knowledge, beliefs, and expectations of the targeted model users. One quality attributed to notations is their semantic transparency, indicating the extent to which a notation intuitively suggests its meaning to untrained users. Method engineers should thus aim at semantic transparency for realizing intuitively understandable notations. However, notation design is often treated poorly—if at all—in method engineering methodologies. This paper proposes a technique that, based on iterative evaluation and improvement tasks, steers the notation toward semantic transparency. The approach can be efficiently applied to arbitrary modeling languages and allows easy integration into existing modeling language engineering methodologies. We show the feasibility of the technique by reporting on two cycles of Action Design Research including the evaluation and improvement of the semantic transparency of the Process-Goal Alignment modeling language notation. An empirical evaluation comparing the new notation against the initial one shows the effectiveness of the technique.

Practitioners’ experiences with model-driven engineering: a meta-review

“…They demonstrated how the framework can be used for evaluating a modeling language. Bork et al [55] presented a technique that modeling language designers can use to evaluate and improve the semantic transparency of their language. They illustrated the technique by applying it to the process-goal alignment modeling language notation and analyzing the results.…”

Validation and verification in domain-specific modeling method engineering: an integrated life-cycle view

“…Table 1. Please note that the approaches we have identified overlap mostly with the ones recently identified in [17]. While ana-lyzing identified approaches we focused on answering the following questions: (1) What are the main aims (scopes) as well as the applicability (e.g., domain-specificity) of the proposed method?…”

“…Concerning assessment of the (draft) visual notation, a well-known and often used, cf. e.g., [127], means for validating a visual notation are the guidelines proposed in the Physics of Notation (PoN) [98], and its various adaptations [17,21,116]. For example, both [17,21] propose an approach which actively involves (prospective) model users in assessing and improving PoN's semantic transparency, which as a theoretic principle assesses the extent to which the visualization of a concept suggests its meaning.…”