1. 1 GRL Tools JUCMNav vs. OpenOME CSI5112 – Project Winter 2008 Bo Peng, Li Chen, Yessine Daadaa

2. 2 Overview  Background  The challenges  What we need  Why them  Evaluation criteria  Methodology  Evaluation  Conclusion  References

3. 3 Background  BYL Inc.  Specialized in tax preparation software  Provides over 100 firms across Canada with personal and corporate tax software  Has been released several versions of tax software since 1999  Planning to release a new version (SofTax08) in May. 2008 with new features

4. 4 The Challenges  Try to meet all clients’ requirements  Introduce new features to clients  Generate reports in UML format for development and easy-to-read documents for customers  Multiplatform required - WIN/UNIX  Integrate tools into the company’s environment – JAVA/Eclipse

5. 5 What we need  We need to find tools can help us to: gather clients’ requirements review the design evaluate architecture decisions avoid holes and resolve conflicts validate and verify business needs  A effective GRL tool at the early stage  Fit into the company’s environment

6. 6 Why them  JUCMNav and OpenOME  Well-known goal-oriented software engineering tools  Both have mature GRL functionalities required  Both are free software developed by Canadian Universities  Both are Java/Eclipse-based

7. 7 Tools presentations JUCMNav:  jUCMNav is a graphical editor for the Use Case Map (UCM) notation  Created by five students supervised by Professor Amyot at the University of Ottawa  Open-source application available under the Eclipse Public License (EPL)  Uses the Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) and the Graphical Modeling Framework (GEF)  First developed as a replacement for jUCMNav  User interface follows Eclipse standards  jUCMNav takes advantage of the Eclipse views (hierarchical/graphical outline, properties, resources)  Improved usability: drag & drop editing, group manipulation, unlimited undo/redo, …  Multiple element references  Auto-layout mechanism  Only allows the creation of syntactically valid models OpenOME:  OME, Organizational Modeling Environment Supports agent- & goal-oriented requirements engineering:  NFR Non-Functional Requirements framework  i* strategic actors modeling  GRL Goal-based Requirements Language  Created at the University of Toronto  OpenOME, extends OME as a Protégé plug- in  Visualize and Query Requirements Models Supports elicitation and analysis of strategic requirements; Search and highlight views in the requirements goal models with knowledge management for the Semantic Web.  OpenOME is designed to be a goal-oriented and/or agent-oriented modeling and analysis tool

8. 8 Evaluation criteria  Usability Evaluate aspects  drawing features  report generating and etc. create model view model analyze model with user defined strategies and scenarios  Format of modeling Report (level of impact: High) Support of import/export formats  Compatibility with other tools (level of impact: High) Integrate with the IDE used in the company  Document (level of impact: Low) Help document & tutorial Quality of user manual

9. 9 On Criterion – Create model OpenOME: create graphically clicks IE not as intuitive textually by define an initial file in q7 syntax learning curve high JUCMNav: create graphically drag and drop more intuitive

10. 10 On Criterion – View model OpenOME: visual GRL signs for evaluation results label propagation can evaluate the satisfaction of high-level goals with respect to the label assignments to the low- level tasks analyze model with user defined strategies JUCMNav: use numbers to evaluate results number propagation can evaluate the satisfaction of high-level goals with respect to user init values to the low-level tasks using algorithm analyze model with user defined strategies and scenarios

11. 11 On Criterion – Import formats supported OpenOME:.tel (text).vdx (XML) JCUMNav: JUCM SCENARIOS XML MSC contains UCM Scenario

12. 12 On Criterion – Export formats supported OpenOME:.tel.sml ( Simple Markup Language ).vdx ( Visio ).png ( potable network graphics ) JCUMNav:  as individual diagrams (GRL):.dot.jpg.bmp.gif.png  as whole URN files:.dxl ( DOORS Extension Language ).csm (optical tracking, 3d format).html.grl.csv

13. 13 On Criterion – documentation OpenOME: not up-to-date, basic documentation & tutorials JUCMNav: up-to-date, detailed documentation, and tutorials

14. 14 Methodology  We developed several test cases for evaluation criteria  For each test case, we developed a scenario  The test cases are designed to record the behavior of each tool for each criterion preferably in quantitative manner if possible compare the results  Use testing results and examples to demonstrate advantages disadvantages (of each tool)

15. 15 Test cases  Test case used to evaluate the Help document Support TC-1: Create Model TC-2: Analyze Model TC-3: Generate Reports

16. 16 OpenOME

17. 17 JUCMNav

18. 18 Test case 1: Create model  According to the requirements from clients, create models in OpenOME and JUCMNav  Checkpoints: Intuition and complexity GUI interface and ease of understanding, basic and advanced operations Support copy and paste, undo, reuse of objects Help system

19. 19 Test case 2: Analyze model  Analyze created models under different scenarios  Checkpoints: Input from other projects Search and recalculate Validation & verification with business reality

20. 20 Test case 3: Generate reports  Generate analysis results in various formats Text-based and Graphic-based Developers and customers  Checkpoints: Supported import/export formats – UML, XML, etc Model “Presentability” to stakeholders.  How can stakeholders understand models? Verification/Validation for conceptual models.  How can such (potentially large) models be verified? By stakeholders?

21. 21 Conclusion  The purpose of the project is to make comparison between JUCMNav and OpenOME  From the business goal, we defined the sub- goals  From the sub-goals, we defined the evaluation criteria.  We developed test cases to evaluate the tools against the criteria  Right now, We are not able to recommend any tool, because the evaluation has not finished.

22. 22 References  http://cserg0.site.uottawa.ca/twiki/bi n/view/ProjetSEG/JUCMNavRelease30 0 http://cserg0.site.uottawa.ca/twiki/bi n/view/ProjetSEG/JUCMNavRelease30 0  http://cserg0.site.uottawa.ca/twiki/bi n/view/ProjetSEG/JUCMNavTutorials http://cserg0.site.uottawa.ca/twiki/bi n/view/ProjetSEG/JUCMNavTutorials  http://www.cs.toronto.edu/km/openo me/ http://www.cs.toronto.edu/km/openo me/  http://www.site.uottawa.ca/~damyot /csi5112/ http://www.site.uottawa.ca/~damyot /csi5112/

23. 23 Questions