Engineering methods from method requirements specifications

Requirements Engineering

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 135-160

  Gupta, Daya ^a   Prakash, Naveen ^b  

^a DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (India)

^b NETAJI SUBHAS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (India)

Author keywords

CAME tool; Instantiation; Meta model; Method assembly; Method components; Method engineering; Requirements specification

Indexed keywords

EID: 52549113660     PISSN: 09473602     EISSN: 1432010X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s007660170001     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Smolander K, Lyttinen K, Tahvanainen VP, Marttiin P. MetaEdit: a flexible graphical environment for methodology modelling. In: Anderson R, Bubenko J, Solvberg A (eds). Advanced information systems engineering. Springer, 1991, pp 168-193
2. Kelly S, Lyttinen K, Rossi M. MetaEdit+: a fully configurable multi user and multi tool CASE and CAME environment. In: Constantopoulos, Mylopoulos, Vassiliou (eds). Advanced information systems engineering. Springer, Berlin, 1996, pp 1-21
3. Harmsen F, Brinkkemper S, Oei H. Situational method engineering for informational system project approaches. In: Verrijn-Stuart AA, Olle TW (eds). Method and associated tools for the information systems life cycle. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1994, pp 169-194
4. Rolland C, Souveyet C, Moreno M. An approach for defining ways of working. Information Syst J 1995;20(4):337-359
5. Plihon V. An environment for method engineering. PhD thesis, University of Paris, 1996
6. Slooten K, Hodes B. Characterising IS development projects. In: Brinkkemper S, Lyttinen K, Welke RJ (eds). Method Engineering Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support. Chapman & Hall, London, 1996, pp 29-45
7. Rolland C, Prakash N. A proposal for context-specific method engineering. In: Brinkkemper S, Lyttinen K, Welke RJ (eds). Method Engineering Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support. Chapman & Hall, London, 1996, pp 191-208
8. Harmsen F, Saeki M. Comparison of four method engineering languages. In: Brinkkemper S, Lyttinen K, Welke RJ (eds). Method Engineering Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support. Chapman & Hall, 1996, pp 209-231
9. MetaCASE Consulting. User manual for MetaEdit Personal 1.2: Customisable CASE tool to meet your requirements, Micro Works, Jyvaskyla, Finland, 1995
10. Harmsen F, Brinkkemper S. Description and manipulation of method fragments for method assembly. In: Proceedings of the workshop on management of software projects. Pergamon Press, London, 1995
11. Prakash N. Towards a formal definition of methods. Requirements Engineering J 1997;2(1):23-50
12. Prakash N. On method statics and dynamics. Information Syst J 1999;24(8):613-637
13. Prakash N, Gupta D. A CAME tool architecture. In: Jaakkola H, Kangassalo H, Kawaguchi E (eds). Information modeling and knowledge bases. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1998, pp 200-219
14. Prakash N. A process view of methodologies. In: Wijers G, Brinkkemper S, Wasserman T (eds). Advanced information systems engineering. LNCS 811. Springer, Berlin, 1994, 339-352
15. Prakash N, Sabharwal S. Building CASE tools for methods represented as abstract data types. In: Patel D, Sun Y, and Patel S (eds). OOIS '96. Springer, Berlin, 1996, pp 357-369
16. Marttiin P, Harmsen F, Rossi M. A functional framework for evaluating method engineering environments. In: Brinkkemper S, Lyttinen K, Welke RJ (eds.), Method Engineering Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support. Chapman & Hall, London, 1996, pp 63-85
17. Si Said S, Rolland C. Formalising guidance for CREWS goal scenario approach to requirements engineering. In: Jaakkola H, Kangassalo H, Kawaguchi E (eds). Information modeling and knowledge bases. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1998, pp 152-171