Designing a Framework for the Development of Domain-Specific Process Modelling Languages

Jannaber, Sven; Riehle, Dennis M.; Delfmann, Patrick; Thomas, Oliver; Becker, Jörg

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-59144-5_3

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With respect to Models read and Models made, the highest median score (i.e., 100) can be found in the category of respondents, which have read or made more than 50 models during the last five years. For these variables, the lowest median (i.e., 40) origins in the range [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] for models read and [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] for models made.…”

Section: Evaluation Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concrete support is not given [16] A procedural approach comprising macro-and micro-processes that steer the design of DSMLs Generic requirements and design guidelines for notation are described in great detail. Concrete support is out of scope [42] A procedural approach aiming to support the creation of new DSMLs Graphical notation is emphasized, but concrete support is not provided [12] Goal-and value-oriented modeling language development approach Not in focus [3] Model-driven development of multi-view modeling methods and tools Graphical notation (even viewpoint-specific ones) is emphasized, but concrete support is not provided [32] Guidance in the design of DSMLs A few guidelines for textual and graphical concrete notation are given [28] A framework guiding the development of domain-specific process modeling languages Graphical notation is emphasized, but concrete support is not provided [62] A procedural approach that focuses the development of DSMLs in the software engineering domain…”

Section: Problem Formulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three approaches [3,28,42] stress the importance of a graphical notation during the development of modeling methods, but they do not support design and evaluation of a modeling language notation. The approaches described in [16,30,32] further informally support notation design by providing guidelines or by referring to notation design literature.…”

Section: Problem Formulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Bork

Roelens

2021

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Evaluation Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Problem Formulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Problem Formulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Bork

Roelens

2021

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Approaches focusing on specific classes of DSMLs only have also been proposed. For instance, [65] focuses on domain-specific process modeling languages, and proposes a framework that is supposed to systematize and structure the development process of process modeling languages. However, the proposed framework represents a rather high-level view on required components for language development.…”

Section: Guidelines For Systematic Industrialmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kaczmarek-Heß

Kinderen

2022

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User

show abstract

“…The evaluation of the usability and learnability of the tool was originally published in [31]. 7 We conducted a user study and surveys [33] involving students having no prior knowledge of the BPMN language, as well as industry analysts, with advanced BPMN knowledge, who typically enjoy working with "quick modeling" shortcuts as they need to, as mentioned by one of them, "represent the content of their processes without having to fiddle with the graphical layout." The results of this evaluation are summarized in this article, which also includes: (a) additional answers to the SUS survey questionnaire with respect to the ones presented in MODELS 2020 and (b) qualitative feedback from users about the benefits and real world applicability of the tool (Table 4).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Live process modeling with the BPMN Sketch Miner

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BPMN Sketch Miner is a modeling environment for generating visual business process models starting from constrained natural language textual input. Its purpose is to support business process modelers who need to rapidly sketch visual BPMN models during interviews and design workshops, where participants should not only provide input but also give feedback on whether the sketched visual model represents accurately what has been described during the discussion. In this article, we present a detailed description of the BPMN Sketch Miner design decisions and list the different control flow patterns supported by the current version of its textual DSL. We also summarize the user study and survey results originally published in MODELS 2020 concerning the tool usability and learnability and present a new performance evaluation regarding the visual model generation pipeline under actual usage conditions. The goal is to determine whether it can support a rapid model editing cycle, with live synchronization between the textual description and the visual model. This study is based on a benchmark including a large number of models (1350 models) exported by users of the tool during the year 2020. The main results indicate that the performance is sufficient for a smooth live modeling user experience and that the end-to-end execution time of the text-to-model-to-visual pipeline grows linearly with the model size, up to the largest models (with 195 lines of textual description) found in the benchmark workload.

show abstract

Designing a Framework for the Development of Domain-Specific Process Modelling Languages

Cited by 7 publications

References 40 publications

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

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

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

Live process modeling with the BPMN Sketch Miner

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About