MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503032158

Methodologie de transformation du cim en pim dans l'approche mda

2011· article· fr· W1503032158 on OpenAlexaff
Witold Suryn, Alain Abran, Samir Kherraf

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware engineeringModel transformationAbstractionTransformation (genetics)Software architectureAbstraction layerProgramming languageSoftwareSystems engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Object Management Group (OMG) has proposed a new software development approach called Model Driven Architecture (MDA). This approach focuses on developing models of the highest level of abstraction and supports the transformation approach from one model to another. MDA advocates the development of three types of models: Computation Independent Model (CIM): this model represents the highest level of abstraction. It describes the system requirements and the environment in which it will operate while the details of the software structure and realisation are hidden or not yet determined. Platform Independent Model (PIM): this model describes the details of the system, but does not show details of the use of its platform or of a particular technology. Platform Specific Model (PSM): this model describes the details and features absent from the PIM. It must be adapted to specify the implementation of the system in a single technology platform. As these different types of models represent various levels of abstraction of the same system, MDA recommends the use of transformation mechanisms allowing the transformation of the CIM to PIM and the PIM to PSM. Since the advent of MDA, many research studies have addressed the issue of transforming the PIM to PSM and PSM to code, but very few deal with the transformation of the CIM to PIM. Although the literature presents some work related to this issue, it seems that few researchers have studied the problems related to the transformation of the CIM to PIM. The CIM was originally considered an integral part of the PIM. Although the concept of independence of the platform is quite clear, the notion of the concept Computation remains unclear. Therefore, the boundary between CIM and PIM models also remains vague. In order to transform the CIM to PIM, we have identified three research issues: 1) the definition of the architecture of the CIM to define its borders with the PIM, 2) the definition of the architecture of the PIM to define its borders with the PSM, 3) the definition of a methodology to transform the CIM to PIM. This thesis contributes to the field of model driven engineering. More specifically we propose for this end: 1) an architecture of the CIM based on the composition of three models Business Motivation Model (BMM), Business Process Model (BPM) and Requirement Model (RM), 2) an architecture of the PIM based on analysis patterns and archetype patterns, 3) a methodology covering all creation steps of the CIM and the techniques and artefacts to produce it or them, allowing the transformation of the CIM to the PIM. A contribution of this work is to improve the traceability between CIM and PIM, as well as bridging the gap between the activities of the business analysts and of the software architects.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.170 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207