CIS555 Discussion Responses

There are two discussions here that need to be responded to thoroughly. Responses must be on APA format 150+words 1-2 legitimate verifiable sources per response.

CIS555 discussion 1 post responses.

Respond to the colleagues posts regarding:

"Meta-Modeling" Please respond to the following:

• A meta-model may be used to relate goal, object, agent, operation, and behavior models. Determine whether or not a system model that represents a meta-model could be functional without all five of the views defined. Provide a rationale. 

• Determine whether you would use UML class diagrams or another tool to describe meta-models. Support your position.

SP’s post states the following:

A meta-model may be used to relate goal, object, agent, operation, and behavior models. Determine whether or not a system model that represents a meta-model could be functional without all five of the views defined. Provide a rationale. 

Metamodels are considered as the model that characterizes and combines conceptual abstractions in terms of which other models are defined.  At the meta-level. it has the following (Lamsweerde, 2009):• meta concepts which are the agent, goal, operation, and association

• meta relationships which link the concepts which are the responsibility, performance, input, and link.

•  meta attributes of meta concepts/relationships, which is the load of agent and multiplicity of link.

•meta constraints on meta concepts/relationships which are agents of performing and control of the output.

I believe that five views must be clearly defined in order to represent a meta-model.  Each meta-level concept represents a particular meta-level. 

Determine whether you would use UML class diagrams or another tool to describe meta-models. Support your position.

It would be my preference to use UML class diagrams to describe meta-models. Since metamodeling describes individual elements of the modeling language and the language particularly, it describes the language for many different levels.  For instance, the behavior could be described as a unit of speech in visual language. The object could be considered another language and is the basic element of object-oriented programming.  Since UML diagrams models objects in instances of classes, I believe it would be a good choice to use it to describe meta-models (Digital Guide IONOS, 2018).

References:

Lamsweerde, A. (2009). Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., Publication. 

Digital Guide IONOS.  (2009).  Class Diagrams with UML. Retrieved from https://www.ionos.com/digitalguide/websites/web-development/class-diagrams-with-uml/

CIS555 discussion 2 post responses.

Respond to the colleagues posts regarding:

"Goal-Oriented Modeling" Please respond to the following:

• Suppose someone made the claim, “There is no difference between modeling the system-as-is and the system-to-be”. Provide three reasons to support or refute this claim.

• From the e-Activity, provide your opinion as to whether the extension from the article makes it easier or harder to build models compared to using plain UML. Provide a rationale.

SP’s post states the following:

Suppose someone made the claim, “There is no difference between modeling the system-as-is and the system-to-be”. Provide three reasons to support or refute this claim.

When I think of system-as-is, I consider it as the current system that is not meeting the current standards of the system.  For instance, the system-as-is could need to keep up-to-date with a new change for a business.  Secondly, the system must incorporate and define a preliminary model of business goals.  The system-to-be expands the preliminary model which allows requirement engineers to build a better system that will meet the needs of the new business objectives (Lamsweerde, 2009).

From the e-Activity, provide your opinion as to whether the extension from the article makes it easier or harder to build models compared to using plain UML. Provide a rationale.

The extension from the article does make it easier to read than using plain UML. One of the things that I noticed is that it uses categories of links to define relationships.  for better comprehension, sub-elements are broken down into sub-elements. Also, it is easy to connect actors to each other.

Reference:

Lamsweerde, A. (2009). Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., Publication.