Towards a Decision Making Framework for Model Transformation - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
towards a decision making framework for model
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Towards a Decision Making Framework for Model Transformation - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 05, 2022 243 likes •462 views

Towards a Decision Making Framework for Model Transformation Languages Soroosh Nalchigar soroosh@cs.toronto.edu Outline Introduction Research problem Proposed solution Application (3 scenarios) Where to go from here? 2

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Soroosh Nalchigar soroosh@cs.toronto.edu

Towards a Decision Making Framework for Model Transformation Languages

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Outline

  • Introduction
  • Research problem
  • Proposed solution
  • Application (3 scenarios)
  • Where to go from here?
slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

Introduction

  • Model Driven Engineering (MDE)

is growing.

  • Model transformation is primary

activity in MDE.

  • A wide variety of tools and

languages:

– QVT – ATL – AGG – …

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Research problem

  • A challenging task of software

engineer is to choose a particular language given a set of non- functional requirements.

  • Challenges:

– Multiple – Intangible and difficult to measure, if not impossible – Some are conflicting

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Research goal

  • The main goal of this research is

to propose a decision making framework for selecting most suitable model transformation language given non-functional requirements

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

Outline

  • Introduction
  • Research problem
  • Proposed solution
  • Application (3 scenarios)
  • Where to go from here?
slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

  • To build a decision making

framework, the first step was to create a comprehensive list of non- functional requirements of model transformations.

  • Review of previous works

Non-Functional Requirements in Model Transformations

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Comparison of Two Languages

  • We compared ATL and AGG with regarding to

all non-functional requirements.

  • This was done by reviewing previous works.
  • Example:

– ATL is capable of managing complex models because of its imperative language constructs and use of helper functions (Stephan & Stevenson, 2009). – Graph transformations are sometimes accused

  • f generating inefficient programs or having

inefficient algorithms (Mens et al. 2006).

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Comparison of Two Languages

However, is this model enough for decision making? We used qualitative contribution links since NFRs are intangible and difficult to measure. It lacks a systematic way of choosing an specific alternative.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Fuzzy-AHP approach

  • The decision mechanism used in this paper is

called Fuzzy-AHP.

  • Fuzzy-AHP = Fuzzy set theory + AHP
slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Fuzzy set theory

  • Proposed by Zadeh in 1965.
  • To deal with vagueness of human thought
  • Degree of membership is between 0 and 1.
  • It resembles human reasoning in its use of approximate

information and uncertainty to generate decisions.

Membership value height 1 “tall” in Iran “tall” in USA “tall” in NBA

180cm 160cm

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

AHP

  • Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
  • Proposed by Saaty in 1980.
  • One of the Multi-Criteria Decision-

Making (MCDM) methods.

  • Four steps:

– problem hierarchy, – judgment matrices by pairwise comparisons, – calculation of local priorities – calculation of global priorities

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

AHP

  • Example:

Secondary Criteria Ford Taurus Goal Lexus Saab 9000 General Criteria Alternatives Braking Dist Turning Radius Handling Purchase Cost Maint Cost Gas Mileage Economy Time 0-60 Power Buy the best Car

F L S F L S 1 1 1 3 5 1/3 1/5 3 1/3

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Fuzzy-AHP

  • Step 1. Development of problem hierarchy
  • Step 2. Fuzzy comparison matrix
  • Step 3. Calculation of fuzzy synthetic extents
  • Step 4. Fuzzy synthetic extents are compared
  • Step 5. Find minimum degree of possibilities
  • Step 6. Normalization of weight vector
slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Outline

  • Introduction
  • Research problem
  • Proposed solution
  • Application (3 scenarios)
  • Where to go from here?
slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

Case 1

  • From [17]
  • M2M transformation
  • Business process models
  • BPMN to BPEL
  • Since we are dealing with

business analyst, we assume that understandability, conciseness, modularity, and visualization are more important than other NFRs.

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Case 1

  • Inputs to fuzzy-AHP method form expert:
  • From literature:
slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

Case 2

  • From [1,14,45,32]
  • ER model from class diagram
  • Has been implemented in ATL,

AGG, QVT, etc…

  • In this case we assume that all

the non-functional requirements are of same level of importance.

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Case 3

  • From [6]
  • Large industrial context
  • Code generations from huge models
  • Important NFRs for this case:
  • Scalability,
  • Interoperability,
  • Standardization and
  • Reusability
slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Results

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

Conclusion

  • Main contribution of my work.
  • Advantages:

– Introduction of fuzzy concepts to NFRs – Ease of use

  • Future works:

– Extend the number of languages – Real experts, more than one, for fuzzy pairwise comparisons – Sensitivity analysis – And to publish it somewhere … <3