• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Me2011 Granularity presentation by Henderson-Sellers
 

Me2011 Granularity presentation by Henderson-Sellers

on

  • 398 views

Towards the Gnularity Theory for Determining the Size of Atomic Method Fragments for Use in Situational Method Engineering

Towards the Gnularity Theory for Determining the Size of Atomic Method Fragments for Use in Situational Method Engineering

Statistics

Views

Total Views
398
Views on SlideShare
398
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Me2011 Granularity presentation by Henderson-Sellers Me2011 Granularity presentation by Henderson-Sellers Presentation Transcript

    • Towards the use of granularity theory for determining the size of atomic method fragments for use in situational method engineering Brian Henderson-Sellers Director, COTAR Centre for Human Centred Technology Design School of Software University of Technology, Sydney Cesar Gonzalez-Perez The Heritage Laboratory CSIC, Santiago de Compostela
    • Overview
      • Application of granularity theory
      • Context of fragment for use in Situational Method Engineering (SME)
      • Focus on atomic fragments
      • Assessment of granularity of OPF’s work unit fragments
    • Context: SME
      • Situational method engineering uses method fragments, stored in a repository, from which a full software development methodology is constructed
      • The granularity of these fragments has two elements:
        • the granularity of the metamodel element
        • the size and granularity of the fragment description
    • For example, metamodel granularity
      • Two possible granularities for a metamodel
      Process Element Activity Task Process Element Activity Task Process Element Activity Task Process Element Activity Task Process Element
    • This leads to notion of abstraction, which is crucial for modelling
      • Maps a representation of problem to a “more abstract” representation i.e. less detail
      • Loss of detail leads to a simpler problem to be solved
      • By preserving relevant properties, allows easier solution to problem by use of abstract model
    • Abstraction Mapping α : S  A Formally, an abstraction maps between two formal systems, Σ 1 , Σ 2 , where each system is a set of formulae, Θ , written in a language Λ . Then, equating Θ with Λ (Giunchiglia and Walsh, 1992), we have Σ =( Λ ) such that f: Σ 1  Σ 2 and f Λ : Λ 1  Λ 2
    • Abstraction = granularity abstraction, F, iff
      • For x 1 , …. x n  L 0 , x  L j
      • F(x i ) = x for all i  [1,n]
      • where x is either a constant, a function or a predicate
      • A granularity abstraction is an atomic abstraction
    • Granularity abstraction called F-ABS by Keet (2007)  
    • Granularity abstractions
      • May refer to
      • Classification structures (is instance of)
      • Generalization (is a kind of)
      • Whole-part (is a part of)
    • Example: Granularity in classification/instantiation structure Class Object detail added detail removed
    • Proposed size measure (ER2010) G s = 1 G s = 0.2
    • Discussion
      • Smaller values of G s suggest finer granularity
      • Very high values (  1) and very low values (  0) are likely to be unacceptable – for different reasons
    • Methodology metamodel triangle Here, we focus on WorkUnit
    • Metamodel fragment for WorkUnitKind WorkUnitKind +StartTime +EndTime +Duration + Parent 0..1 + Child 0..* + Context 1 Process Kind Technique Kind TaskKind +Component 0..* SEMDM (ISO/IEC 24744)
    • Two possible granularities
      • One specific TaskKind as example fragment
      Task Kind Name : Elicit and document requirements Purpose : To develop and refine a formal and stable requirements specification and provide a document . Minimum capability level : 1 Description : Requirements are to be elicited from clients, domain experts, marketing personnel and users. Usual sub - tasks include defining the problem, evaluating existing systems, establishing user requirements, distribution requirements and database requirements and providing a written statement of requirements . startTime endTime duration
    • Case Study: OPF fragments
      • Problem
      • Many fragments increasing in size over the years – especially Construct the object model
      • Tasks should have a suite of optional techniques not a suite of mandatory ones – as was the case
    • Task amalgamation
    • Consequence of task amalgamation
      • Creation of parallel Construct the agent model led to the identification of 17 atomic tasks embedded within the merged “Task”
    • Revision of fragments
      • Solution
      • Suggest that Construct the agent model should be an OPF Activity (24744 SubProcess of Design Process) not a Task. Name = Construct the model using the selected technology/paradigm
      • With the 17 identified atomic tasks no longer embedded but as full Tasks
    • Summary - 1
      • Defining granularity theoretically is useful to understand how to optimize fragment granularity
      • BUT not the only factor – just one part of a “quality vector”
      • Re-evaluation of granularity of OPF fragments leads to major revision of the fragment structure and content
    • Summary - 2
      • Future work
      • Further re-evaluation of specific fragments in OPF and revision as necessary to ensure atomicity
      • Quantification of granularity value
      • How reusable are fragments of different granularities?