Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Software and Systems Modeling
Published in: Software and Systems Modeling 3/2021

17-10-2020 | Regular Paper

CEViNEdit: improving the process of creating cognitively effective graphical editors with GMF

Authors: David Granada, Juan M. Vara, Mercedes Merayo, Esperanza Marcos

Published in: Software and Systems Modeling | Issue 3/2021

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The rise of domain-specific (Visual) languages and the inherent complexity of developing graphical editors for these languages have led to the emergence of proposals that provide support for this task. Most of these proposals are principally based on EMF and GMF, which effectively help to simplify and increase the level of automation of the development process of the editors, but it is important to recall that these proposals have some important disadvantages, mainly related to the learning curve of these technologies, poor documentation or the complexity of providing all the customisation possibilities to the user. In addition, in the process of developing a domain-specific language, issues related to graphical conventions have historically been undervalued, while most of the effort has been focused on semantic aspects. In fact, definitions of the concrete (visual) syntax of modelling languages in Software Engineering are usually based on common sense, intuition, the reuse of existing notations or emulation of common practices. In order to alleviate the inherent complexity of the EMF/GMF approach for the development of graphical editors and to support the evaluation of the quality of visual notations of modelling languages, this article presents CEViNEdit, an intuitive tool that simultaneously supports the semi-automatic generation of graphical editors and the assessment of the cognitive effectiveness of the visual notation implemented by the editor.
previous article Pragmatic reuse for DSML development
next article A systematic literature review of cross-domain model consistency checking by model management tools

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Footnotes
3
Generation of GMF Graphical Editors for the Entity—Relationship Model: https://​www.​kybele.​es/​cevinedit/​EditorsPractice.​pdf.
 
4
First questionnaire—Knowledge and Preferences: https://​www.​kybele.​es/​cevinedit/​Q1.​pdf.
 
5
Graphical editor development with GMF (Spanish): https://​www.​kybele.​es/​cevinedit/​GMFTutorial.​pdf.
 
7
Second questionnaire—Tools Evaluation: https://​www.​kybele.​es/​cevinedit/​Q2.​pdf.
 
8
Members of the Kybele research group: https://​www.​kybele.​es/​es/​miembros/​.
 
Literature
1.
Mernik, M., Heering, J., Sloane, A.M.: When and how to develop domain-specific languages. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 37(4), 316–344 (2005)CrossRef
2.
Bézivin, J.: In search of a basic principle for Model Driven Engineering. Novatica J. Spec. Issue 5(2), 21–24 (2004)
3.
4.
Gray, J., Rumpe, B.: Models for the digital transformation. Softw. Syst. Model. 16(2), 307–308 (2017)CrossRef
5.
Schmidt, D.C.: Model-driven engineering. Comput. IEEE Comput. Soc. 39(2), 25 (2006)CrossRef
6.
Brambilla, M., Cabot, J., Wimmer, M.: Model-driven software engineering in practice. Synth. Lect. Softw. Eng. 3(1), 1–207 (2017)CrossRef
7.
Gronback, R.C.: Eclipse Modeling Project: A Domain-Specific Language (DSL) Toolkit. Pearson Education, London (2009)
8.
Whittle, J., Hutchinson, J., Rouncefield, M., Burden, H., Heldal, R.: Industrial adoption of Model-Driven Engineering: are the tools really the problem? In: International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 1–17. Springer (2013)
9.
Granada, D., Vara, J.M., Blanco, F.P., Marcos, E.: Model-based tool support for the development of visual editors-a systematic mapping study. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Software Technologies, ICSOFT 2017, pp. 330–337 (2017)
10.
Volter, M.: From programming to modeling-and back again. IEEE Softw. 28(6), 20–25 (2011)CrossRef
11.
Selic, B.: What will it take? A view on adoption of model-based methods in practice. Softw. Syst. Model. 11(4), 513–526 (2012)CrossRef
12.
Moody, D.L.: The Physics of Notations: a scientific approach to designing visual notations in software engineering. In: 2010 ACM/IEEE 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 485–486. IEEE (2010)
13.
Zhang, J., Norman, D.A.: Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognit. Sci. 18(1), 87–122 (1994)CrossRef
14.
Wheildon, C., Ogilvy, D., Heard, G.: Type and Layout: Are You Communicating Or Just Making Pretty Shapes?. Worsley Press, Kent (2005)
15.
Clark, T., Sammut, P., Willans, J.: Applied metamodelling: a foundation for language driven development. arXiv preprint arXiv:​1505.​00149 (2015)
16.
Morris, S.J., Gotel, O.C.Z.: Flow diagrams: rise and fall of the first software engineering notation. In: International Conference on Theory and Application of Diagrams, pp. 130–144. Springer (2006)
17.
Bertin, J.: Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison (1983)
18.
Kolovos, D.S., García-Domínguez, A., Rose, L.M., Paige, R.F.: EuGENia: towards disciplined and automated development of GMF-based graphical model editors. Softw. Syst. Model. 16(1), 229–255 (2017)CrossRef
19.
Budinsky, F., Steinberg, D., Ellersick, R., Grose, T.J., Merks, E.: Eclipse Modeling Framework: A Developer’s Guide. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2004)
20.
Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C.: The Epsilon Object Language (EOL). In: European Conference on Model Driven Architecture-Foundations and Applications, pp. 128–142. Springer (2006)
21.
Kolovos, D.S, Rose, L.M, Abid, S.B., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C., Botterweck, G.: Taming EMF and GMF using model transformation. In: International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 211–225. Springer (2010)
22.
Goodman, N.: Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Hackett publishing, Indianapolis (1976)
23.
Lohse, G.L.: A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception. Hum. Comput. Interact. 8(4), 353–388 (1993)CrossRef
24.
Miller, G.A.: The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63(2), 81 (1956)CrossRef
25.
Moody, D.L.: Review of ArchiMate: The road to international standardisation. Report commissioned by the ArchiMate Foundation and BiZZDesign BV, Enschede, The Netherlands, 77 (2007)
26.
Moody, D.L., Heymans, P., Matulevicius, R.: Improving the effectiveness of visual representations in requirements engineering: An evaluation of i* visual syntax. In: 2009 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 171–180. IEEE (2009)
27.
Genon, N., Heymans, P., Amyot, D.: Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 visual notation. In: International Conference on Software Language Engineering, pp. 377–396. Springer (2010)
28.
Moody, D., van Hillegersberg, J.: Evaluating the visual syntax of UML: an analysis of the cognitive effectiveness of the UML family of diagrams. In: International Conference on Software Language Engineering, pp. 16–34. Springer (2008)
29.
Genon, N., Amyot, D., Heymans, P.: Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the UCM visual notation. In: International Workshop on System Analysis and Modeling, pp. 221–240. Springer (2010)
30.
Thomas, J.C., Diament, J., Martino, J., Bellamy, R.K.E.: Using the Physics” of Notations to analyze a visual representation of Business Decision Modeling. In: 2012 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), pp. 41–44. IEEE (2012)
31.
Popescu, G., Wegmann, A.: Using the Physics of Notations theory to evaluate the visual notation of seam. In: 2014 IEEE 16th Conference on Business Informatics, vol. 2, pp. 166–173. IEEE (2014)
32.
Granada, D., Vara, J.M., Brambilla, M., Bollati, V., Marcos, E.: Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the WebML visual notation. Softw. Syst. Model. 16(1), 195–227 (2017)CrossRef
33.
Kish, L.: Some statistical problems in research design. Am. Sociol. Rev. 24, 328–338 (1959) CrossRef
34.
Kitchenham, B.A., Dyba, T., Jorgensen, M.: Evidence-based software engineering. In: Proceedings. 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 273–281. IEEE (2004)
35.
36.
Pérez-Blanco, F.J., Vara, J.M., Gómez, C., De Castro, V., Marcos, E.: Model-based tool support for service design. In: International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, pp. 266–272. Springer (2020)
37.
Estañol, M., Marcos, E., Oriol, X., Pérez, F.J., Teniente, E., Vara, J.M.: Validation of service blueprint models by means of formal simulation techniques. In: International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing, pp. 80–95. Springer (2017)
38.
Chen, P.P.-S.: The Entity-Relationship model-toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. (TODS) 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRef
39.
Moss, K.: The Entity-Relationship model. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2012)
40.
Connolly, T.M., Begg, C.E.: Database Systems: A Practical Approach to Design, Implementation, and Management. Pearson Education, London (2005)MATH
41.
Shull, F.J., Carver, J.C., Vegas, S., Juristo, N.: The role of replications in empirical software engineering. Empir. Softw. Eng. 13(2), 211–218 (2008)CrossRef
42.
Mora, B., García, F., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M.: Graphical versus textual software measurement modelling: an empirical study. Softw. Qual. J. 19(1), 201–233 (2011)CrossRef
43.
Fisher, R.A.: On the probable error of a coefficient of correlation deduced from a small sample. Metron 1, 1–32 (1921)
44.
Koo, T.K., Li, M.Y.: A guideline of selecting and reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for reliability research. J. Chiropractic Med. 15(2), 155–163 (2016)CrossRef
45.
McGraw, K.O., Wong, S.P.: Forming inferences about some Intraclass Correlation Coefficients. Psychol. Methods 1(1), 30 (1996)CrossRef
46.
Fleiss, J.L.: Design and analysis of clinical experiments (Wiley Classics Library). J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 94(448), 1384 (1999)
47.
Kazemzadeh, Y., Milton, S.K., Johnson, L.W., et al.: Process Chain Network (PCN) and Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN): a comparison of concepts. J. Manag. Strategy 6(1), 88–99 (2015)CrossRef
48.
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer, Berlin (2012)CrossRef
49.
Cairns, P., Soegaard, M., Dam, R.F.: Experimental methods in Human-Computer Interaction, Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction (2016)
50.
Minas, M., Köth, O.: Generating diagram editors with DiaGen. In: International Workshop on Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance, pp. 433–440. Springer (1999)
51.
Pescador, A., Garmendia, A., Guerra, E., Cuadrado, J.S., de Lara, J.: Pattern-based development of domain-specific modelling languages. In: 2015 ACM/IEEE 18th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), pp. 166–175. IEEE (2015)
52.
Brand, C., Gorning, M., Kaiser, T., Pasch, J., Wenz, M.: Development of high-quality graphical model editors. Eclipse Magazine (2011)
53.
Tolvanen, J.-P., Kelly, S.: MetaEdit+ defining and using integrated domain-specific modeling languages. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN Conference Companion on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications, pp. 819–820. ACM (2009)
54.
Juliot, E., Benois, J.: Viewpoints creation using Obeo Designer or how to build Eclipse DSM without being an expert developer. Obeo Designer Whitepaper. http://​archive.​is/​bnAUd (2010)
55.
Viyović, V., Maksimović, M., Perisić, B.: Sirius: a rapid development of DSM graphical editor. In: IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems INES 2014, pp. 233–238. IEEE (2014)
56.
Ehrig, K., Ermel, C., Hänsgen, S., Taentzer, G.: Towards graph transformation based generation of visual editors using eclipse. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 127(4), 127–143 (2005)CrossRef
57.
Pontisso, N., Chemouil, D.: Topcased combining formal methods with Model-Driven Engineering. In: 21st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE’06), pp. 359–360. IEEE (2006)
58.
Gutwenger, C., Kupke, J., Klein, K., Leipert, S.: GoVisual for CASE tools borland together control center and Gentleware Poseidon-system demonstration. In: International Symposium on Graph Drawing, pp. 123–128. Springer (2003)
59.
López-Fernández, J.J., Garmendia, A., Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: An example is worth a thousand words: creating graphical modelling environments by example. Softw. Syst. Model. 18(2), 961–993 (2019)CrossRef
60.
Garmendia, A., Guerra, E., de Lara, J., García-Domínguez, A., Kolovos, D.: Scaling-up domain-specific modelling languages through modularity services. Inf. Softw. Technol. 115, 97–118 (2019)CrossRef
61.
Taentzer, G.: Towards generating domain-specific model editors with complex editing commands. In: Proceedings of International Workshop Eclipse Technology eXchange (eTX), Satellite Event of ECOOP (2006)
62.
Ehrig, K., Ermel, C., Hänsgen, S., Taentzer, G.: Generation of visual editors as eclipse plug-ins. In: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 134–143 (2005)
63.
Pelechano, V., Albert, M., Muñoz, J., Cetina, C.: Building Tools for Model Driven Development. Comparing Microsoft DSL Tools and Eclipse Modeling Plug-ins. In: Actas del Taller sobre Desarrollo de Software Dirigido por Modelos. MDA y Aplicaciones. Sitges, Spain, October 3, 2006, volume 227 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2006)
64.
Amyot, D., Farah, H., Roy, J.-F.: Evaluation of development tools for domain-specific modeling languages. In: International Workshop on System Analysis and Modeling, pp. 183–197. Springer (2006)
65.
Sentosa, P., Möller, R., Gollmann, D., Garcia, M.: Generation of Text Editors for Custom Domain Specific Language on the Eclipse Platform. Master’s thesis, Hamburg University of Technology (2007)
66.
67.
Kern, H., Hummel, A., Kühne, S.: Towards a comparative analysis of meta-metamodels. In: Proceedings of the compilation of the co-located workshops on DSM’11, TMC’11, AGERE! 2011, AOOPES’11, NEAT’11, & VMIL’11, pp. 7–12 (2011)
68.
Frankel, D.S.: Model Driven Architecture Applying MDA to Enterprise Computing. OMG Press, Wiley Publishing Inc, New York (2003)
69.
Krogstie, J., Sindre, G., Jørgensen, H.: Process models representing knowledge for action: A revised quality framework. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(1), 91–102 (2006)CrossRef
70.
Schuette, R., Rotthowe, T.: The guidelines of modeling–an approach to enhance the quality in information models. In: International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, pp. 240–254. Springer (1998)
71.
Green, T.R.G.: Cognitive dimensions of notations. In: Sutcliffe, A., Macaulay, L. (eds.) People and Computers V, pp. 443–460. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1989)
72.
Green, T.R.G., Petre, M.: Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a cognitive dimensions framework. J. Visual Lang. Comput. 7(2), 131–174 (1996)CrossRef
73.
Störrle, H., Fish, A.: Towards an operationalization of the physics of notations for the analysis of visual languages. In: International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 104–120. Springer (2013)
Metadata
Title
CEViNEdit: improving the process of creating cognitively effective graphical editors with GMF
Authors
David Granada
Juan M. Vara
Mercedes Merayo
Esperanza Marcos
Publication date
17-10-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Software and Systems Modeling / Issue 3/2021
Print ISSN: 1619-1366
Electronic ISSN: 1619-1374
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-020-00833-2

Other articles of this Issue 3/2021

Software and Systems Modeling 3/2021 Go to the issue

Guest Editorial

Guest editorial to the theme section on Multi-Paradigm Modeling for Cyber-Physical Systems

Regular Paper

Implementing QVT-R via semantic interpretation in UML-RSDS

Theme Section Paper

Handling causality and schedulability when designing and prototyping cyber-physical systems

Theme Section Paper

Multi-paradigm modelling for cyber–physical systems: a descriptive framework

Regular Paper

Wodel-Test: a model-based framework for language-independent mutation testing

Regular Paper

A systematic literature review of cross-domain model consistency checking by model management tools

Premium Partner

    Image Credits