Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Software and Systems Modeling
Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling 1/2024

17.04.2023 | Regular Paper

Modelling assistants based on information reuse: a user evaluation for language engineering

verfasst von: Ángel Mora Segura, Juan de Lara, Manuel Wimmer

Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling | Ausgabe 1/2024

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Model-driven engineering (MDE) uses models as first-class artefacts during the software development lifecycle. MDE often relies on domain-specific languages (DSLs) to develop complex systems. The construction of a new DSL implies a deep understanding of a domain, whose relevant knowledge may be scattered in heterogeneous artefacts, like XML documents, (meta-)models, and ontologies, among others. This heterogeneity hampers their reuse during (meta-)modelling processes. Under the hypothesis that reusing heterogeneous knowledge helps in building more accurate models, more efficiently, in previous works we built a (meta-)modelling assistant called Extremo. Extremo represents heterogeneous information sources with a common data model, supports its uniform querying and reusing information chunks for building (meta-)models. To understand how and whether modelling assistants—like Extremo—help in designing a new DSL, we conducted an empirical study, which we report in this paper. In the study, participants had to build a meta-model, and we measured the accuracy of the artefacts, the perceived usability and utility and the time to completion of the task. Interestingly, our results show that using assistance did not lead to faster completion times. However, participants using Extremo were more effective and efficient, produced meta-models with higher levels of completeness and correctness, and overall perceived the assistant as useful. The results are not only relevant to Extremo, but we discuss their implications for future modelling assistants.
Vorheriger Artikel SimIMA: a virtual Simulink intelligent modeling assistant
Nächster Artikel How do I find reusable models?

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
6
https://​www.​omg.​org/​fdtf/​projects.​htm. The OMG is the standardization body behind many modelling standards such as UML, SysML, MOF or BPMN.
 
Literatur
1.
Brambilla, M., Cabot, J., Wimmer, M.: Model-Driven Software Engineering in Practice, 2nd edn. Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael (2017)CrossRef
2.
Schmidt, D.C.: Guest editor’s introduction: model-driven engineering. Computer 39(2), 25–31 (2006)CrossRef
3.
Kelly, S., Pohjonen, R.: Worst practices for domain-specific modeling. IEEE Softw. 26(4), 22–29 (2009)CrossRef
4.
5.
Mens, K., Lozano, A.: Source code-based recommendation systems. In: Recommendation Systems in Software Engineering, pp. 93–130. Springer (2014)
6.
Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Paternostro, M., Merks, E.: EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2008)
7.
Almonte, L., Guerra, E., Cantador, I., de Lara, J.: Recommender systems in model-driven engineering. Softw. Syst. Model. 21(1), 249–280 (2022)CrossRef
8.
Mussbacher, G., Combemale, B., Kienzle, J., Abrahão, S., Ali, H., Bencomo, N., Búr, M., Burgueño, L., Engels, G., Jeanjean, P., Jézéquel, J.-M., Kühne, T., Mosser, S., Sahraoui, H.A., Syriani, E., Varró, D., Weyssow, M.: Opportunities in intelligent modeling assistance. Softw. Syst. Model. 19(5), 1045–1053 (2020)CrossRef
9.
Agt-Rickauer, H., Kutsche, R.-D., Sack, H.: Automated recommendation of related model elements for domain models. In: 6th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development (MODELSWARD), Revised Selected Papers, volume 991 of CCIS, pp. 134–158. Springer (2018)
10.
Dyck, A., Ganser, A., Lichter, H.: A framework for model recommenders—requirements, architecture and tool support. In: MODELSWARD, pp. 282–290 (2014)
11.
Elkamel, A., Gzara, M., Ben-Abdallah, H.: An UML class recommender system for software design. In: 13th IEEE/ACS International Conference of Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA), pp. 1–8. IEEE Computer Society (2016)
12.
Burgueño, L., Clarisó, R., Gérard, S., Li, S., Cabot, J.: An NLP-Based Architecture for the Autocompletion of Partial Domain Models. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering—33rd International Conference, CAiSE, volume 12751 of LNCS, pp. 91–106. Springer (2021)
13.
Di Rocco, J., Di Sipio, C., Di Ruscio, D., Nguyen, P.T.: A GNN-based recommender system to assist the specification of metamodels and models. In: ACM/IEEE 24th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), pp. 70–81 (2021)
14.
Weyssow, M., Sahraoui, H., Syriani, E.: Recommending metamodel concepts during modeling activities with pre-trained language models. Softw. Syst. Model. (2022)
15.
Almonte, L., Pérez-Soler, S., Guerra, E., Cantador, I., de Lara, J.: Automating the synthesis of recommender systems for modelling languages. In: SLE’21: 14th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering, pp. 22–35. ACM (2021)
16.
Pescador, A., de Lara, J.: DSL-maps: from requirements to design of domain-specific languages. In: Proceedings of ASE, pp. 438–443. ACM (2016)
17.
Aquino, E.R., de Saqui-Sannes, P., Vingerhoeds, R.A.: A methodological assistant for use case diagrams. In: 8th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development (MODELSWARD), pp. 227–236. SciTePress (2020)
18.
Cerqueira, T., Ramalho, F., Marinho, L.B.: A content-based approach for recommending UML sequence diagrams. In: 28th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE), pp. 644–649 (2016)
19.
Segura, A.M., de Lara, J., Neubauer, P., Wimmer, M.: Automated modelling assistance by integrating heterogeneous information sources. Comput. Lang. Syst. Struct. 53, 90–120 (2018)
20.
Segura, Á.M., de Lara, J.: Extremo: an Eclipse plugin for modelling and meta-modelling assistance. Sci. Comput. Program. 180, 71–80 (2019)CrossRef
21.
Stephan, M.: Towards a cognizant virtual software modeling assistant using model clones. In: 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results (NIER@ICSE), pp. 21–24. IEEE/ACM (2019)
22.
Iovino, L., Barriga, A., Rutle, A., Heldal, R.: Model repair with quality-based reinforcement learning. J. Obj. Technol. 19(2), 17:1-17:21 (2020)CrossRef
23.
Ohrndorf, M., Pietsch, C., Kelter, U., Kehrer, T.: ReVision: a tool for history-based model repair recommendations. In: 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Companion Proceeedings, pp. 105–108. ACM (2018)
24.
Steimann, F., Ulke, B.: Generic model assist. In: Proceedings of MODELS, volume 8107 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 18–34. Springer (2013)
25.
Sen, S., Baudry, B., Vangheluwe, H.: Towards domain-specific model editors with automatic model completion. Simulation 86(2), 109–126 (2010)CrossRef
26.
Mussbacher, G., Combemale, B., Abrahão, S., Bencomo, N., Burgueño, L., Engels, G., Kienzle, J., Kühne, T., Mosser, S., Sahraoui, H.A., Weyssow, M.: Towards an assessment grid for intelligent modeling assistance. In: Proceedings of MODELS Companion, pp. 48:1–48:10. ACM (2020)
27.
Brooke, J., et al.: SUS-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluat. Ind. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)
28.
Abrahão, S., Bourdeleau, F., Cheng, B.H.C., Kokaly, S., Paige, R.F., Störrle, H., Whittle, J.: User experience for model-driven engineering: Challenges and future directions. In: MODELS, pp. 229–236. IEEE Computer Society (2017)
29.
Robillard, M.P., Walker, R.J., Zimmermann, T.: Recommendation systems for software engineering. IEEE Softw. 27(4), 80–86 (2010)CrossRef
30.
Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions-Logic, Language, and Analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)
31.
Macedo, N., Tiago, J., Cunha, A.: A feature-based classification of model repair approaches. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 43(7), 615–640 (2017)CrossRef
32.
Reder, A., Egyed, A.: Computing repair trees for resolving inconsistencies in design models. In: IEEE/ACM ASE, pp. 220–229. ACM (2012)
33.
Habel, A., Sandmann, C.: Graph repair by graph programs. In: STAF Workshops, volume 11176 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 431–446. Springer (2018)
34.
Dyck, A., Ganser, A., Lichter, H.: Enabling model recommenders for command-enabled editors. In: MDEBE, pp. 12–21 (2013)
35.
Dyck, A., Ganser, A., Lichter, H.: On designing recommenders for graphical domain modeling environments. In: MODELSWARD, pp. 291–299 (2014)
36.
Hajiyev, E., Verbaere, M., de Moor, O., De Volder, K.: Codequest: querying source code with datalog. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 2005, pp. 102–103. ACM (2005)
37.
Linstead, E., Bajracharya, S.K., Ngo, T.C., Rigor, P., Videira Lopes, C., Baldi, P.: Sourcerer: mining and searching internet-scale software repositories. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 18(2), 300–336 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRef
38.
Mendieta, R., de la Vara, J.L., Llorens, J., Álvarez-Rodríguez, J.: Towards effective SysML model reuse. In: Proceedings of MODELSWARD, pp. 536–541. SCITEPRESS (2017)
39.
Álvarez Rodríguez, J.M., Mendieta, R., de la Vara, J.L., Fraga, A., Morillo, J.L.: Enabling system artefact exchange and selection through a linked data layer. J. UCS 24(11), 1536–1560 (2018)
40.
Lucrédio, D., de Mattos Fortes, R.P., Whittle, J.: MOOGLE: a metamodel-based model search engine. Softw. Syst. Model. 11(2), 183–208 (2012)CrossRef
41.
Hernández López, J.A., Cuadrado, J. S.: An efficient and scalable search engine for models. Softw. Syst. Model. (2021)
42.
Bislimovska, B., Bozzon, A., Brambilla, M., Fraternali, P.: Textual and content-based search in repositories of web application models. TWEB 8(2), 1–11 (2014)CrossRef
43.
Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., van Dongen, B.F., Käärik, R., Mendling, J.: Similarity of business process models: metrics and evaluation. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 498–516 (2011)CrossRef
44.
Paige, R.F., Kolovos, D.S., Rose, L.M., Drivalos, N., Polack, F.A.C.: The design of a conceptual framework and technical infrastructure for model management language engineering. In: ICECCS, pp. 162–171. IEEE Computer Society (2009)
45.
Carver, J.C., Syriani, E., Gray, J. Assessing the frequency of empirical evaluation in software modeling research. In: 1st Workshop on Experiences and Empirical Studies in Software Modelling (2011)
46.
Whittle, J., Hutchinson, J.E., Rouncefield, M., Burden, H., Heldal, R.: A taxonomy of tool-related issues affecting the adoption of model-driven engineering. Software Syst. Model. 16(2), 313–331 (2017)CrossRef
47.
Abrahão, S., Iborra, E., Vanderdonckt, J.: Usability evaluation of user interfaces generated with a model-driven architecture tool. In: Maturing Usability—Quality in Software, Interaction and Value, HCI Series, pp. 3–32. Springer (2008)
48.
Wüest, D., Seyff, N., Glinz, M.: Flexisketch: a lightweight sketching and metamodeling approach for end-users. Softw. Syst. Model. 18(2), 1513–1541 (2019)CrossRef
49.
Safdar, S.A., Iqbal, M.Z., Khan, M.U.: Empirical evaluation of UML modeling tools-a controlled experiment. In: 11th European Conference on Modelling Foundations and Applications (ECMFA), pp. 33–44 (2015)
50.
Bobkowska, A., Reszke, K.: Usability of UML modeling tools. In: Conference on Software Engineering: Evolution and Emerging Technologies, pp. 75–86 (2005)
51.
Ren, R., Castro, J.W., Santos, A., Pérez-Soler, S., Acuña, S.T., de Lara, J.: Collaborative modelling: Chatbots or on-line tools? An experimental study. In: Proceedings of EASE, pp. 260–269. ACM (2020)
52.
Pérez-Soler, S., Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: Collaborative modeling and group decision making using chatbots in social networks. IEEE Softw. 35(6), 48–54 (2018)CrossRef
53.
Condori-Fernández, N., Panach, J.I., Baars, A.I., Vos, T.E.J., Pastor, O.: An empirical approach for evaluating the usability of model-driven tools. Sci. Comput. Program. 78(11), 2245–2258 (2013)CrossRef
54.
Tolvanen, J.-P., Kelly, S.: Model-driven development challenges and solutions—experiences with domain-specific modelling in industry. In: Proceedings of MODELSWARD, pp. 711–719. SciTePress (2016)
55.
Karna, J., Tolvanen, J.-P., Kelly, S. Evaluating the use of domain-specific modeling in practice. In: Proceedings of the 9th OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling (2009)
56.
Buezas, N., Guerra, E., de Lara, J., Martín, J., Monforte, M., Mori, F., Ogallar, E., Pérez, O., Cuadrado, J.S.: Umbra designer: Graphical modelling for telephony services. In: Proceedings of ECMFA, volume 7949 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 179–191. Springer (2013)
57.
Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., Rouncefield, M., Kristoffersen, S.: Empirical Assessment of MDE in Industry. In: ICSE, pp. 471–480. ACM (2011)
58.
Cuadrado, J.S., Cánovas Izquierdo, J.L., Molina, J.G.: Applying model-driven engineering in small software enterprises. Sci. Comput. Program. 89, 176–198 (2014)CrossRef
59.
Green, T.R.G.: Cognitive dimensions of notations. In: People and Computers V, pp. 443–460. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1989)
60.
Moody, D.L.: The physics of notations: Toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)CrossRef
61.
Granada, D., Vara, J.M., Bollati, V.A., Marcos, E.: Enabling the development of cognitive effective visual DSLs. In: MODELS, volume 8767 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 535–551. Springer (2014)
62.
Barisic, A., Amaral, V., Goulão, M.: Usability driven DSL development with USE-ME. Comput. Lang. Syst. Struct. 51, 118–157 (2018)
63.
Granada, D., Vara, J.M., Brambilla, M., Bollati, V.A., Marcos, E.: Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the WebML visual notation. Softw. Syst. Model. 16(1), 195–227 (2017)CrossRef
64.
Atkinson, C., Kennel, B., Goß, B.: The level-agnostic modeling language. In: 3rd International Conference on Software Language Engineering (SLE), pp. 266–275. Springer (2011)
65.
Miller, G.A.: Wordnet: a lexical database for English. Commun. ACM 38(11), 39–41 (1995)CrossRef
66.
Ko, A.J., LaToza, T.D., Burnett, M.M.: A practical guide to controlled experiments of software engineering tools with human participants. Empir. Softw. Eng. 20(1), 110–141 (2015)CrossRef
67.
Salman, I., Misirli, A.T., Juristo, N.: Are students representatives of professionals in software engineering experiments? In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering—Volume 1, ICSE ’15, pp. 666–676. IEEE (2015)
68.
Falessi, D., Juristo, N., Wohlin, C., Turhan, B., Münch, J., Jedlitschka, A., Oivo, M.: Empirical software engineering experts on the use of students and professionals in experiments. Empirical Softw. Eng. 23(1), 452–489 (2018)CrossRef
69.
Feldt, R., Zimmermann, T., Bergersen, G.R., Falessi, D., Jedlitschka, A., Juristo, N., Münch, J., Oivo, M., Runeson, P., Shepperd, M., SjØberg, D.I., Turhan, B.: Four commentaries on the use of students and professionals in empirical software engineering experiments. Empirical Softw. Eng. 23(6), 3801–3820 (2018)CrossRef
70.
71.
Likert, R.A.: A technique for measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 22 (1932)
72.
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer, Martin Höst (2012)CrossRef
73.
Bangor, A., Kortum, P., Miller, J.: Determining what individual sus scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud. 4(3), 114–123 (2009)
74.
Singer, J., Vinson, N.G.: Ethical issues in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(12), 1171–1180 (2002)CrossRef
75.
Vinson, N.G., Singer, J.: A Practical Guide to Ethical Research Involving Humans, pp. 229–256. Springer, Berlin (2008)
76.
Kitchenham, B.A., Pfleeger, S.L.: Personal Opinion Surveys, pp. 63–92. Springer, Berlin (2008)
77.
Powers, D.: Evaluation: From precision, recall and fmeasure to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlation. J. Mach. Learn. Technol. 2, 37–63 (2007)
78.
Saito, T., Rehmsmeier, M.: The precision-recall plot is more informative than the ROC plot when evaluating binary classifiers on imbalanced datasets. PLOS ONE 10(3), 1–21 (2015)CrossRef
79.
Van Rijsbergen, C.J.: Information Retrieval, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (1979)
80.
Forman, G., Scholz, M.: Apples-to-apples in cross-validation studies: Pitfalls in classifier performance measurement. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 12(1), 49–57 (2010)CrossRef
81.
Lewis, J.R., Sauro, J.: The factor structure of the system usability scale. In: 1st International Conference on Human Centered Design, HCD, pp. 94–103. Springer, Berlin (2009)
82.
Lewis, J.R., Brown, J., Mayes, D.K.: Psychometric evaluation of the EMO and the SUS in the context of a large-sample unmoderated usability study. Int. J. Human-Comput. Interact. 31(8), 545–553 (2015)CrossRef
83.
Sauro, J., Lewis, J.R.: When designing usability questionnaires, does it hurt to be positive? In: SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI, pp. 2215–2224. ACM (2011)
84.
Lewis, J.R., Utesch, B.S., Maher, D.E.: Measuring perceived usability: the SUS, UMUX-LITE, and AltUsability. Int. J. Human-Computer Interact. 31(8), 496–505 (2015)CrossRef
85.
Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge, London (2013)CrossRef
86.
Banerjee, A., Chitnis, U.B., Jadhav, S.L., Bhawalkar, J.S., Chaudhury, S.: Hypothesis testing, type I and type II errors. Ind. Psychiatry J. 18, 127–31 (2009)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
87.
Nickerson, R.: Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychol. Methods 5, 241–301 (2000)PubMedCrossRef
88.
McGraw, K., Wong, S.C.P.: A common language effect size measure. Psychol. Bull. 111, 361–365 (1992)CrossRef
89.
Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1988)
90.
Burgueño, L., Cabot, J., Li, S., Gérard, S.: A generic LSTM neural network architecture to infer heterogeneous model transformations. Softw. Syst. Model. 21(1), 139–156 (2022)CrossRef
91.
Hernández López, J.A., Cánovas Izquierdo, J.L., Cuadrado, J.S.: Modelset: a dataset for machine learning in model-driven engineering. Softw. Syst. Model. (2022)
92.
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (2000)CrossRef
93.
94.
Forstmeier, W., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Parker, T.H.: Detecting and avoiding likely false-positive findings—a practical guide. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 92(4), 1941–1968 (2017)PubMedCrossRef
95.
Brooke, J.: SUS: a retrospective. J. Usability Stud. 8(2), 29–40 (2013)
96.
Cronbach, L.J.: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3), 297–334 (1951)CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Modelling assistants based on information reuse: a user evaluation for language engineering
verfasst von
Ángel Mora Segura
Juan de Lara
Manuel Wimmer
Publikationsdatum
17.04.2023
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Software and Systems Modeling / Ausgabe 1/2024
Print ISSN: 1619-1366
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-1374
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-023-01094-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2024

Software and Systems Modeling 1/2024 Zur Ausgabe

Regular Paper

SimIMA: a virtual Simulink intelligent modeling assistant

Regular Paper

Modelling guidance in software engineering: a systematic literature review

Expert Voice

Quo Vadis modeling?

Editorial

Report on the state of the SoSyM journal (2023 summary)

Regular Paper

Scientific workflow execution in the cloud using a dynamic runtime model

Regular Paper

Model projection relative to submetamodeling dimensions

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise