117 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
117 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
type:: [[REVIEWS]]
|
|
tags::
|
|
year:: 2024
|
|
venue:: [[IST]]
|
|
full-title:: Understanding the Landscape of Software Modelling Assistants: A Systematic Mapping
|
|
date-start:: [[04-01-2024]] - 21:39
|
|
date-submitted:: [[28-01-2024]]
|
|
external-links::
|
|
status:: [[DONE]]
|
|
deadline-submission:: [[21-01-2024]]
|
|
file:: 
|
|
parent::
|
|
todoist:: https://app.todoist.com/showTask?id=7558442965
|
|
|
|
- ### [[Highlights]]
|
|
- #+BEGIN_IMPORTANT
|
|
((65b60d38-0de2-446d-8b8e-d51b6c7add1f))
|
|
((65b60c20-9ed6-4738-ade8-907ea7b9aa1a))
|
|
((65b60c3e-6141-4792-88fc-2f12a2b36d21))
|
|
((65b61ab8-dd75-427f-a857-fca8cdf77886))
|
|
#+END_IMPORTANT
|
|
-
|
|
- ((65b61014-d487-462d-b10a-79d30170e4f8))
|
|
- Too many things.
|
|
- The whole paragraph starting with "We Observed..." must be revised. Conepts like goals or the different kinds of clusters are mentioned without a proper presentation.
|
|
- ((65b6103a-fcdb-4a1f-8be3-d528066afbe5))
|
|
- What goals? Are you using some particular approach like GQM? The concept of "goal" suddenly appears in the text without proper context. [[question]]
|
|
- ((65b6181b-f5f1-447d-9b7c-e7f6cfec3460))
|
|
- It is only clear at the end of the Intro. It is necessary to move early in the introduction the use of GMQ.
|
|
- ((65b610c8-cd95-4969-94bd-dd0dd113326d))
|
|
- Even limitation clusters are used without proper introduction.
|
|
- ((65b61381-09e5-42ef-b3c0-c4c1b59b44aa))
|
|
- Are these criteria also used to analyse MDSE tools? [[question]]
|
|
- ((65b616d0-fcbe-4867-bcb4-b0b162fff67d))
|
|
- The introduction is repetitive and not right to the point.
|
|
- ((65b61705-c868-4e4d-b3eb-6813776500e9))
|
|
- This is not mentioned in the abstract. At this stage one wonders if it is among the goals of the paper. It is not even shown in Fig. 1.
|
|
- ((65b617aa-66c4-4975-b5b0-a6abb3152b54)) What does it mean? [[question]]
|
|
- ((65b61978-9b68-4065-ae96-1712cec27c49))
|
|
- The quality of the figure needs to be enhanced.
|
|
- ((65b618a6-c3d7-4664-8066-f3f960a9f8c7))
|
|
- This seems a specializaion of the previous group, so it is not clear the benefits of such a distinction.
|
|
- ((65b619ba-f450-4d98-a1d0-d0514aa567c2))
|
|
- The quality of the figure needs to be enhanced.
|
|
- ((65b61a30-7fef-4ab4-8950-f29705a6b5b7))
|
|
- What was the mentiond initial set of RQs? [[question]]
|
|
- ((65b61bfe-c4bd-43c8-b3eb-d300ba4fbab1))
|
|
- Why? If the development is model-based, why not? [[question]]
|
|
- I'm not convinced about the proposed clusters that conceptually overlap if not properly explained. For instance, what's the difference between ((65b61e59-1a11-4aff-9727-43a42f9205c6)) and ((65b61e6e-1277-497f-9b1b-a00f01797a4a)). Even modelling frameworks looks generic and might include keywords belonging to other clusters.
|
|
- To summarize the misleading clusters that need particular definitions are techniques, methods, and frameworks (which can e.g. overlap with tools)
|
|
- Methods:
|
|
background-color:: yellow
|
|
- Some keywords seem to be more general than the considered focus. For instance, concerning methods, keywords like "service-oriented methods" and "task-driven methods" look more general than "model repair methods", which instead is more in line with the MDE focus. "modeldriven engineering methods" is very generic and does not convey any specific message.
|
|
- ((65b623e5-d38c-40df-a3a5-d76c07b9ae93))
|
|
- With this title, it seems that RQ2 is answered only of items of Clusters Tools shown in Table 2. [[question]]
|
|
- ((65b638c5-2bc9-4fba-a5a8-a4c116616452))
|
|
- How assistance goals are achieved? Is there anything in common in the way assistance is given to modelers? [[question]]
|
|
- It is not clear to what extent metrics and target users can be considered dimensions that are independent from the goals of the tools under analysis. I'm wondering if instead it makes sense to identify for each cluster goal (tab 3), what are the corresponding metrics and the stakeholders/target users (tab 4).
|
|
- ((65b63b5a-ee22-40e8-96ca-de4efdf35cbe))
|
|
- The quality of the figure needs to be enhanced.
|
|
- ((65b68240-aa64-4a3f-a4ed-4293363621e8))
|
|
- This is kind of vaguous if compared to the goals shown in Table 3. It is not clear what modeling tasks you are referring to especially with respect to the goals in Tab. 3.
|
|
- ((65b686cc-087d-4055-91cc-40ecf1faae3b))
|
|
- As a general remark, Section 5 seems to be disconnected from the categorization results presented in the previous sections. I would have expected a discussion of the modeling assistance functionalities provided by the analyzed low-code platforms with respect to the clusters identified in the previous section.
|
|
- ((65b694bc-5d75-45dd-8480-e1a626352288))
|
|
- Move to the previous page
|
|
- The quality of the figure needs to be enhanced.
|
|
- ((65b6a605-b507-47df-8d85-d3812c60aeba))
|
|
- To what extent the work presentd in [66] overlaps with this paper? [[question]]
|
|
- To make the paper self-contained, I would spend some more sentences about [66]. For instance, the fact that a focus group has been done in the context of [66] it can be assumed only by looking at the label given to the lower part of Fig. 12
|
|
- ((65b6a84d-429b-4937-b6d2-30d3b5482066))
|
|
- What do you mean with "emerging" [[question]]
|
|
- ((65b6a8da-bf5f-4c89-bdf2-b2559b992feb))
|
|
- "Digital Health models" is another concept that appears abruptly in the paper. There are many concepts like this that suddenly appear in the paper without any motivation or introduction.
|
|
- ((65b6b221-2581-4f81-96d8-45bf0b719f03))
|
|
- I'm not sure this is the right goal related to the "create new models" operation.
|
|
- In my opinion Section 7 is not in the scope of this paper. If the authors wants to propose AssistMDSE, it needs another paper to properly present the tool in detail. As it is now, does not add much to the paper, which is already verbose and not always focused.
|
|
-
|
|
- ### ❓️Questions
|
|
- {{query (and [[question]] [[INFSOF-D-23-00931]] )[[question]]}}
|
|
query-table:: true
|
|
query-properties:: [:block]
|
|
- ### [[Comments]]
|
|
- SUMMARY: The paper introduces a systematic mapping study to explore the current state of software modeling assistants, considering research papers and low-code modeling tools. The three main objectives are to investigate how software modeling is assisted, identify goals and limitations reported by existing MDSE tools for modeling assistance, and examine the evaluation metrics and target users considered.
|
|
-
|
|
- COMMENTS: While the topic is interesting, the paper faces presentation, organization issues, and some terminology inconsistencies, as discussed below.
|
|
-
|
|
- It is necessary to enhance the quality of figures, specifically Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 7, and Fig. 11.
|
|
- Introduction:
|
|
- The introduction is confusing, occasionally repetitive, and lacks focus. Key terms such as tools, techniques, methods, frameworks, and languages need proper definitions.
|
|
- On page 3, the paragraph starting with "We Observed..." should be revised to introduce concepts like goals and clusters more clearly. The use of GMQ should be mentioned earlier for context.
|
|
- AssistMDSE is not mentioned in the abstract, and at this stage of the paper, one wonders if it is among its goals. AssistMDSE is not even shown in Fig. 1. By the way, it is unclear what the authors mean by "emerging framework".
|
|
- Related work:
|
|
- The paragraph "Reviews on modelling assistance for MDSE tools using specific strategies" seems to be a specialization of the group "Reviews on modelling assistance for MDE tools"; thus, the benefits of such a distinction are not clear.
|
|
- Section 3:
|
|
- Before listing the research question in section 3.1, the authors mention that they started from an initial set of RQs, which were refined while discussing with software engineering experts. Can you present such an initial set, and to what extent does it differ from the investigated three research questions?
|
|
- The inclusion criteria I2 needs to be clarified. In particular, concerning the sentence "Proposals focused on assisting in developing MDSE tools do not fulfil I2", why discard proposals that develop MDSE tools employing models?
|
|
- Section 4.2:
|
|
- I'm not convinced about the proposed clusters that conceptually overlap if not adequately explained. For instance, what's the difference between "collaborative management tools" and "collaborative modeling frameworks"? Moreover, modeling frameworks look generic and might include keywords belonging to other clusters. In other words, I found the clusters "techniques", "methods", and "frameworks" not properly defined, and they can overlap with "tools."
|
|
- Concerning "Methods", some of the keywords seem to be more general than the considered focus. For instance, keywords like "service-oriented methods" and "task-driven methods" look more general than "model repair methods", which instead is more in line with the MDE focus. "model-driven engineering methods" is very generic and does not convey any specific message.
|
|
- Section 4.3:
|
|
- Research question 2 needs to be clarified. By using "MDSE tools", it seems that the investigation is done only by considering the cluster "Tools" shown in Table 2
|
|
- Overall, the answer to RQ2 is missing a treatment on how assistance goals are achieved. Is there anything in common among the analized works in how assistance is given to modelers?
|
|
- To what extent can metrics and target users be considered dimensions independent of the goals of the tools under analysis? I would like to know if, instead, it makes sense to identify for each cluster goal (tab 3) the corresponding metrics and the stakeholders/target users (tab 4).
|
|
- Section 5:
|
|
- As a general remark, Section 5 seems disconnected from the previous sections' categorization results. I would have expected a discussion of the modeling assistance functionalities provided by the analyzed low-code platforms with respect to the clusters identified in the previous section.
|
|
- RQ4: "Proposals for assisting during modelling tasks" are vacuous if compared to the goals shown in Table 3. It is not clear what modeling tasks you are referring to especially with respect to the goals in Tab. 3.
|
|
- Section 7:
|
|
- To what extent does the work presented in [66] overlap with this paper? I would spend more sentences about [66] to make the paper self-contained. For instance, the fact that a focus group has been done in the context of [66] can be assumed only by looking at the label given in the lower part of Fig. 12.
|
|
- Section 7 is not in the scope of this paper. If the authors want to propose AssistMDSE, they need another paper to present the tool in detail properly. It only adds a little to the paper, which is already verbose and not always focused.
|
|
- Section 7.1
|
|
- "A modelling assistant for automatically creating Digital Health models in MDSE tools."
|
|
- "Digital Health models" is another concept that appears abruptly in the paper. Many concepts like this suddenly appear in the paper without any motivation or introduction.
|
|
- Table 6 needs revision. For instance, I'm not sure that "G6. Easing model evolution" is the right goal for the "create new models" operation.
|
|
-
|
|
- ### [[REVIEWS/Notes]]
|
|
- |