Exercise lecture : Exercise 2 and 3 Rune / Yun

Overview Intro to exercise 3 Aspects from exercise 2

Exercise 3 Available, extended deadline with one week (see updated exercise schedule on web) Task 1: Evaluate the quality of another groups model from exercise 2 (instance model in task 2) Task 2: Goal-modelling: Work further on your result from exercise 2, task 1 (type level model) Task 3: Strategic dependancy model, link EEML and i* in same model Task 4: As task 3 in assignment 2 Possible to work on task 1 and task 2/3/4 in paralell

Task 1 Will get the METIS model made by another group (or from us) Will not get information about which group Evaluate physical, empirical, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic quality (not the others) Important to have in mind that there is a large number of ways to arrange such models ! Although it is possible to add to the model based on information from for instance the web sites that it was linked to, this is not mandatory.

Task 2 – Goal modelling Extend your own type-level model If you learn new things relative to the new information in this case, you can (but do not have to) update the class and tasks models you have already made. Focus is on goal-modelling (including relating goals to tasks) Good starting point: A new container: Goals Add goals, goal relationships and links from goals to tasks There might also be goals listed in the task description from exercise 2

Task 3 – Strategic Dependancy Model Using i* as supported in METIS In the same model as you worked on before Limited form of meta-modelling (see next slide) Recommend to save the model after task 2 seperately!

Task 3: Augment meta-model Open your model (currently EEML-model) Click the meta-model tab Select i* (if it says not loaded, load it clicking the +-sign) Drag i* metamodel onto the background of your model On question if you want to augment the meta-model, answer yes

Task 3: SD-modelling Good starting point: Add a new container with name e.g. actor dependancies Use the i* concepts within this You should link some of the concepts in your i* model to the same concept in the EEML model (using for instance a ’general relationship’) Note that i* and EEML appearantly share concepts (task, goal), on the other hand, these have different rules and properties, probably best to do the modelling by dragging concepts from the menu (and not using the New Object)

Short on exercise 2 (relative to exercise 3 task 1) Will not show a possible solution of this today Will have an overview of a possible solution for exercise 2 and 3 after exercise 3 is submitted Some overall aspects –Folder structure –Use of sub-modelling

Exercise 3, task 4 lanuage quality Not here expected to develop detailed evaluation according to the quality framework/language quality Same applies to task 4 in exercise 3 Both positive and negative aspects relevant Will perform more detailed evaluation of language quality in later exercises

Exercise 3, task 4 Not expected that you have been using all the potentially relevant functionality in exercise 2. Validity more important than completeness Both positive and negative aspects Must try to differentiat aspects of the tool and aspects of the concrete modelling language and its implementation in the tool Some highlights (next slide)

METIS physical quality Store models as files, but also repository solution exist (not in our setup), including versioning, access controll etc. Also the reporsitory is unfortunately currently working on a file level. Propriatary file format, but possible to make models available on web (Web report), or to be navigated using METIS browser. Difficult to include live models in e.g. document (word, take screendump/snagit etc) Sub-modelling to make it possible for a team to work on seperate parts for later integration Meta-modelling to make it possible to extend and specialise the modelling language, difficult to manage Possible to import/export models to other tools (e.g. from database or to excel)

METIS empirical quality Good alignement and equal spacing facilities Possible to specify layout strategies, and have these enforced Possible to change anchor points of relations Can differentiate relationships etc through different fonts/colors etc Available swimlane-view No spell checking of texts

METIS syntactic quality Syntax error prevention: Can restrict allowed relationships between different modelling concepts, types of concepts being included as part of other concepts Can be sidestepped using type change mechanism Syntax error checking through ’validate model’

METIS semantic quality Limited support of advanced consistency checking in the tool itself Some support of quick modelling –Stamping, new object etc –Importing from excel and databases with automatic layout Some support of quick changes –Swap direction

METIS pragmatic quality Grouping of part of the language in folders etc makes it possible to work with large models, some with large depth in decomposition structure Filtering : Both predefined (Find…) and throught the definition of own criteria Possible to make own views based on an existing model, changes to a modelling concept propagated to all views Can view the same concept in different ways using different viewstyles Difficult to manage view functionalty. View criterias not persistently stored Any model execution/simulation must be done using other tools

METIS social quality Model annotation to make it possible to gather input from a lot of different stakeholders linked to the model Can model exceptions (in language constructs) No explicit support for argumentation processes

METIS organizational quality Little support for expressing and making sure the goals of modelling is fulfilled (can be included as part of the language) Limited methodological support Relatively expensive tool Relatively steep learning curve Training services available Tool available for the foreseeable future, stable customer base