Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 1419–1445 | Cite as

Assessing the impact of meta-model evolution: a measure and its automotive application

  • Darko DurisicEmail author
  • Miroslaw Staron
  • Matthias Tichy
  • Jörgen Hansson
Regular Paper


Domain-specific meta-models play an important role in the design of large software systems by defining language for the architectural models. Such common modeling languages are particularly important if multiple actors are involved in the development process as they assure interoperability between modeling tools used by different actors. The main objective of this paper is to facilitate the adoption of new domain-specific meta-model versions, or a subset of the new architectural features they support, by the architectural modeling tools used by different actors in the development of large software systems. In order to achieve this objective, we developed a simple measure of meta-model evolution (named NoC—Number of Changes) that captures atomic modification between different versions of the analyzed meta-model. We evaluated the NoC measure on the evolution of the AUTOSAR meta-model, a domain-specific meta-model used in the design of automotive system architectures. The evaluation shows that the measure can be used as an indicator of effort needed to update meta-model-based tools to support different actors in modeling new architectural features. Our detailed results show the impact of 14 new AUTOSAR features on the modeling tools used by the main actors in the automotive development process. We validated our results by finding a significant correlation between the results of the NoC measure and the actual effort needed to support these features in the modeling tools reported by the modeling practitioners from four AUTOSAR tool vendors and the AUTOSAR tooling team at Volvo Cars. Generally, our study shows that quantitative analysis of domain-specific meta-model evolution using a simple measure such as NoC can be used as an indicator of the required updates in the meta-model-based tools that are needed to support new meta-model versions. However, our study also shows that qualitative analysis that may include an inspection of the actual meta-model changes is needed for more accurate assessment.


Domain-specific meta-models Modeling tools Architectural features Software evolution Measurement Automotive software AUTOSAR 



The authors would like to thank Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA) for funding this research (Grant No. 2013-02630) and all our industrial partners for contributing to the presented work. The authors would also like to thank Maxime Jimenez who helped us in the assessment of the presented data model for measuring the evolution of UML and Modelica meta-models.

Supplementary material


  1. 1.
    Kent, S.: “Model driven engineering.” In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods, pp. 286–299 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bézivin, J., Gerbé, O.: “Towards a precise definition of the OMG/MDA framework.” In: International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 273–280 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Taylor, R., Medvidovic, N., Dashofy, E.: Software Architecture: Foundations, Theory, and Practice. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saeki, M., Kaiya, H.: “On relationships among models, meta models and ontologies.” In: 6th OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling, (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Durisic, D., Staron, M., Tichy, M., Hansson, J.: “Addressing the need for strict meta-modeling in practice—a case study of AUTOSAR.” In: International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development, (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    MOF 2.0 Core Specification, Object Management Group, (2004)
  7. 7.
    Aßmann, U., Zschaler, S., Wagner, G.: “Ontologies, meta-models, and the model-driven paradigm.” In: Ontologies for Software Engineering and Software Technology. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 249–273, (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Model-driven development: a metamodeling foundation. J. IEEE Softw. 20(5), 36–41 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eriksson, O., Henderson-Sellers, B., Ågerfalk, P.J.: Ontological and linguistic metamodelling revisited: a language use approach. J. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(12), 2099–2124 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pagel, M., Brörkens, M.: “Definition and generation of data exchange formats in AUTOSAR.” In: European Conference on Model Driven Architecture-Foundations and Applications, pp. 52–65 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mantz, F., Taentzer, G., Lamo, Y.: “Well-formed model co-evolution with customizable model migration.” In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution, pp. 1–10 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Automotive Open System Architecture, AUTOSAR, (2003)
  13. 13.
    Durisic, D., Staron, M., Tichy, M.: “Identifying optimal sets of standardized architectural features: a method and its automotive application.” In: International ACM SIGSOFT Conference on Quality of Software Architectures, pp. 103–112 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Durisic, D., Staron, M., Tichy, M., Hansson, J.: “Evolution of long-term industrial meta-models—a case study of AUTOSAR.” In: Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, pp. 141–148 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nordstrom, G., Dawant, B., Wilkes, D.M., Karsai, G.: “Metamodeling—rapid design and evolution of domain-specific modeling environments.” In: IEEE Conference on Engineering of Computer Based Systems, pp. 68–74 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Information Technology - Information Resource Dictionary System, ISO/IEC 10027 (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T., Henderson-Sellers, B.: “Stereotypical encounters of the third kind.” In: In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language, pp. 100–114 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gouriet, P.: “Involving AUTOSAR rules for mechatronic system design.” In: International Conference on Complex Systems Design & Management, pp. 305–316 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu, Y., Li, Y.Q., Zhuang, R.K.: The application of automatic code generation technology in the development of the automotive electronics software. In: International Conference on Mechatronics and Industrial Informatics Conference 321–324, pp. 1574–1577 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brörkens, M., Köster, M.: “Improving the interoperability of automotive tools by raising the abstraction from legacy XML formats to standardized metamodels.” In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Model Driven Architecture-Foundations and Applications, pp. 59–67 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    AUTOSAR Generic Structure Template v4.2.1, (2014)
  22. 22.
    Yin, R.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th edn. SAGE, London (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M., Regnell, B., Wesslen, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    AUTOSAR System Template v4.2.1, (2014)
  25. 25.
    AUTOSAR Software Component Template v4.2.1, (2014)
  26. 26.
    Durisic, D., Staron, M., Tichy, M.: “ARCA - Automated analysis of AUTOSAR meta-model changes.” In: International Workshop on Modelling in Software Engineering, pp. 30–35 (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meyer, M., Booker, J.: Eliciting and Analyzing Expert Judgment: A Practical Guide. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia (2001)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fenton, N.E., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach, 2nd edn. International Thomson Computer Press, London (1996)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Systems and Software Engineering - Measurement Process, ISO/IEC 15939 (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    AUTOSAR Release Overview and Revision History v4.2.1, (2014)
  31. 31.
    Jimenez, M., Staron, D.D.M.: “Measuring the evolution of meta-models—a case study of modelica and UML meta-models,” In: International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development (2017)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Open Modelica User Guide (Releases), OpenModelica,, (2016)
  33. 33.
    Cook, T., Campbell, D.: Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1979)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ma, Z., He, X., Liu, C.: Assessing the quality of metamodels. Front. Comput. Sci. 7(4), 558–570 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rocco, J.D., Ruscio, D.D., Iovino, L., Pierantonio, A.: “Mining metrics for understanding metamodel characteristics.” In: International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering, pp. 55–60 (2014)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hyoseob, K., Boldyreff, C.: “Developing software metrics applicable to UML models.” In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Quantitative Approaches in Object-Oriented Software Engineering (2002)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    McQuillan, J.A., Power, J.F.: “On the application of software metrics to UML models.” In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Models in Software Engineering, pp. 217–226 (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Williams, J., Zolotas, A., Matragkas, N., Polack, F.: “What do metamodels really look like?” In: International Workshop on Experiences and Empirical Studies in Software Modeling (2013)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Madhavi, K.: “A framework for visualizing model-driven software evolution.” In: Proceedings of the Conference on Advance Computing, pp. 1628–1633 (2009)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kuryazov, D., Winter, A.: “Representing model differences by delta operations.” In: International Workshop on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing, pp. 211–220 (2014)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Haber, A., Hölldobler, K., Kolassa, C., Look, M., Rumpe, B., Müller, K., Schaefer, I.: “Engineering delta modeling languages.” In: International Conference on Software Product Lines, pp. 22–31 (2013)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cicchetti, A., Ruscio, D.D., Pierantonio, A.: A metamodel independent approach to difference representation. J. Obj. Technol. 6(9), 165–185 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Xing, Z., Stroulia, E.: “UMLDiff: an algorithm for object-oriented design differencing.” In: International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 54–65 (2005)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kehrer, T., Rindt, M., Pietsch, P., Kelter, U.: “Generating edit operations for profiled UML models.” In: International Workshop on Models and Evolution, pp. 30–39 (2013)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    EMF Compare Project,, Eclipse (2015)
  46. 46.
    Vermolen, S., Wachsmuth, G., Visser, E.: “Reconstructing complex metamodel evolution.” In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Language Engineering, pp. 201–221 (2011)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rocco, J.D., Ruscio, D.D., Iovino, L., Pierantonio, A.: “Describing the correlations between metamodels and transformations aspects.” In: Seminar on Advanced Techniques and Tools for Software Evolution, pp. 90–101 (2014)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kessentini, W.: “Automated metamodel/model co-evolution using a multi-objective optimization approach.” In: International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 13–18 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Darko Durisic
    • 1
    Email author
  • Miroslaw Staron
    • 2
    • 3
  • Matthias Tichy
    • 4
  • Jörgen Hansson
    • 5
  1. 1.Volvo Car GroupGöteborgSweden
  2. 2.Chalmers University of TechnologyGöteborgSweden
  3. 3.University of GothenburgGöteborgSweden
  4. 4.Ulm UniversityUlmGermany
  5. 5.University of SkövdeSkövdeSweden

Personalised recommendations