@inproceedings {Simula.simula.2820,
	title = {Insights on the Use of OCL in Diverse Industrial Applications},
	journal = {8th System Analysis and Modelling Conference (SAM{\textquoteright}14)},
	year = {2014},
	publisher = {Springer},
	type = {Conference},
	address = {Switzerland},
	abstract = {The Object Constraint Language (OCL) is a widely accepted language, standardized by OMG, for specifying constraints at various meta levels (e.g., meta-models and models). Despite its wide acceptance, there is a lack of understanding about terminology and purposes for which OCL can be used. In this paper, we aim to reduce this gap and provide guidance for applying OCL in practical contexts and we report our experience of applying OCL for different industrial projects in diverse domains: Communications and Control, Oil and Gas production, Energy Equipment and Services, and Recycling. Based on our experience, first, we unify the commonly used terminology in the literature for applying OCL in different ways for addressing diverse industrial problems. Second, we report the key results of the industrial application of OCL. Finally, we provide guidance to researchers and practitioners for choosing an appropriate meta-level and purpose for their specific industrial problem at hand.},
	keywords = {Conference},
	author = {Ali, Shaukat and Yue, Tao and Muhammad Zohaib {Iqbal} and Rajwinder Kaur {Panesar-Walawege}},
	editor = {Amyot, Daniel and Pau Fonseca i. {Casas} and Mussbacher, Gunter}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.simula.2822,
	title = {A Systematic Approach to Automatically Derive Test Cases From Use Cases Specified in Restricted Natural Languages},
	journal = {8th System Analysis and Modelling Conference (SAM{\textquoteright}14)},
	year = {2014},
	publisher = {Springer},
	type = {Conference},
	address = {Switzerland},
	abstract = {In many domains, such as avionics, oil and gas, and maritime, a common practice is to derive and execute test cases manually from requirements, where both requirements and test cases are specified in NL by domain experts. The manual execution of test cases is largely dependent on the domain experts who wrote the test cases. The process of manual writing of requirements and test cases introduce ambiguity in their description and in addition test cases may not be effective since they may not be derived by systematic applying coverage criteria. In this paper, we report a systematic approach to support automatic derivation of manually executable test cases from use cases. Both use cases and test cases are specified in restricted NLs along with carefully defined templates implemented in a tool. We evaluate our approach with four case studies (in total having 30 use cases and 579 steps of flow of events), two of which are industrial case studies from the oil and gas and avionics domains. Results show that our tool was able to correctly process all the case studies and systematically (by following the carefully defined structure coverage criterion) generate 30 TCSs and 389 test cases. Moreover our approach allows defining different test coverage criteria on requirements other than the one already implemented in our tool.},
	keywords = {Conference},
	author = {Zhang, Man and Yue, Tao and Ali, Shaukat and Zhang, Huihui and Wu, Ji},
	editor = {Amyot, Daniel and Pau Fonseca i. {Casas} and Mussbacher, Gunter}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.simula.1958,
	title = {Assessing Composition in Modeling Approaches},
	journal = {Proceedings of the CMA 2012 Workshop},
	year = {2012},
	publisher = {ACM},
	type = {Workshop},
	address = {.},
	abstract = {Modeling approaches are based on various paradigms, e.g., aspect-oriented, feature-oriented, object-oriented, and logic-based. Modeling approaches may cover requirements models to low-level design models, are developed for various purposes, use various means of composition, and thus are difficult to compare. However, such comparisons are critical to help practitioners know under which conditions approaches are most applicable, and how they might be successfully generalized and combined to achieve end-to-end methods. This paper reports on work done at the 2nd International Comparing Modeling Approaches (CMA) workshop towards the goal of identifying potential comprehensive modeling methodologies with a particular emphasis on composition: (i) an improved set of comparison criteria; (ii) 19 assessments of modeling approaches based on the comparison criteria and a common, focused case study.},
	author = {Mussbacher, Gunter and Alam, Omar and Alhaj, Mohammad and Ali, Shaukat},
	editor = {Mussbacher, Gunter}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.simula.1538,
	title = {Comparing Six Modeling Approaches},
	journal = {Models in Software Engineering},
	volume = {7167/2012},
	number = {217-243},
	year = {2011},
	publisher = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science},
	type = {Workshop},
	abstract = {While there are many aspect-oriented modeling (AOM) approaches, from requirements to low-level design, it is still difficult to compare them and know under which conditions different approaches are most applicable. This comparison, however, is crucially important to unify existing AOM and more traditional object-oriented modeling (OOM) approaches and to generalize individual approaches into a comprehensive end-to-end method. Such a method does not yet exist. This paper reports on work done at the inaugural Comparing Modeling Approaches (CMA) workshop towards the goal of identifying potential comprehensive methodologies: (i) a common, focused case study for six modeling approaches, (ii) a set of criteria applied to each of the six approaches, and (iii) the assessment results.},
	author = {Mussbacher, Gunter and Wisam Al {Abed} and Alam, Omar and Ali, Shaukat and Beugnard, Antoine and Bonnet, Valentin},
	editor = {Kienzle, J{\"o}rg}
}
