REFERENCES

1. Atkinson, C. & Kühne, T. 2000. Strict profiles: why and how. Procs Third Intl. Conf. on the Unified Modeling Language, LNCS1939. Springer-Verlag. 309–322.

2. Atkinson, C. & Kühne, T. 2000. Meta-level independent modelling. International Workshop on Model Engineering at the 14th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming. Sophia Antipolis and Cannes, France.

3. Atkinson, C. & Kühne, T. 2001. The essence of multilevel metamodelling. In: M. Gogolla & C. Kobryn (eds). UML2001 – The Unified Modeling Language. Modeling Languages, Concepts and Tools, LNCS 2185. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 19–33.

4. Atkinson, C. & Kühne, T. 2001. Processes and products in a multi-level metamodelling architecture. Int. J. Software Eng. and Knowledge Eng. 11(6): 761–783.

5. Atkinson, C. & Kühne, T. 2002. Rearchitecting the UML Infrastructure. ACM Trans. Modeling and Computer Simulation. 12(4): 290–321. Available at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/643120.643123.

6. Atkinson, C. & Kühne, T. 2003. Model-Driven Development: a Metamodeling Foundation. IEEE Software. 20(5): 36–41.

7. Atkinson, C. & Kühne, T. 2005. Concepts for comparing modeling tool architectures. Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. LNCS 3713. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Berlin. 398–413.

8. Atkinson, C., Kühne, T. & Henderson-Sellers, B. 2003. Systematic stereotype usage. Software and System Modelling. 2(3): 153–163.

9. Azaiez, S., Huget, M.-P. & Oquendo, F. 2006. An approach for multiagent metamodelling. Multiagent and Grid Systems. 2(4): 435–454.

10. Bertoa, M.F., Vallecillo, A. & Garcia, F. 2006. An ontology for software measurement. In: C. Calero, F. Ruiz & M. Piattini (eds). Ontologies for Software Engineering and Software Technology. Heidelberg: Springer. 175–196.

11. Brinkkemper, S. 1996. Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Inf. Software Technol. 38(4): 275–280.

12. Demeyer, S., Tichelaar, S. & Steyaert, P. 1999. FAMIX 2.0. www.iam.unibe.ch/∼famoos/FAMIX/Famix20/Html/famix20.html. Accessed on 13 June 2007.

13. Dominguez, E. & Zapata, M.A. 2000. Mappings and interoperability: a meta-modelling approach. In: T. Takhno (ed.). ADVIS 2000. LNCS 1909 Berlin: Springer. 352–362.

14. Dubé, D. & Vangheluwe, H. 2006. Multi-paradigm modelling and synthesis of user interface. In: A. Pleuss, J. Van den Bergh, H. Hussmann, S. Sauer & A. Boedcher (eds). Procs Workshop W5: Model Driven Development of Advanced User Interfaces (MDDAUI 2006). MODELS conference, Genova, 2 October 2006. Available at http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/ Publications/CEUR-WS//Vol-214/. Accessed on 7 August 2007.

15. Englebert, V. & Heymans, P. 2007. Towards more extensible metaCASE tools. In: J. Krogstie, A.L. Opdahl & G. Sindre (eds). CAiSE 2007. LNCS 4495. Springer-Verlag 454–468.

16. Firesmith, D.G. & Henderson-Sellers, B. 2002. The OPEN Process Framework: An introduction. The OPEN Series. London: Addison-Wesley.

17. Flatscher, R.G. 2002. Metamodeling in EIA/CDIF: meta-metamodel and metamodels. ACM Trans. Modeling and Computer Simulation. 12(4): 322–342.

18. Fuentes-Fernandez, R., Gomez-Sanz, J.J. & Pavon, J. 2007. Integration in agent-oriented development. Int. J. Agent-Oriented Software Eng. 1(1): 2–27.

19. Gonzalez-Perez, C. & Henderson-Sellers, B. 2006. A Powertype-Based Metamodelling Framework. Software and Systems Modelling. 5(1): 72–90.

20. Gonzalez-Perez, C. & Henderson-Sellers, B. 2007. Modelling Software Development Methodologies: a conceptual foundation. Journal of Systems and Software. 80(11): 1778–1796.

21. Henderson-Sellers, B. 2007. On the challenges of correctly using metamodels. Method engineering keynote paper in Procs SoMeT 2007, Rome, 7–9 November 2007.

22. Henderson-Sellers, B. & Edwards, J.M. 1994. BOOKTWO of Object-Oriented Knowledge: The working object. Sydney: Prentice Hall.

23. Henderson-Sellers, B. & Gonzalez-Perez, C. 2006. Uses and abuses of the stereotype mechanism in UML1.4 and 2.0 In: O. Nierstrasz, J. Whittle, D. Harel & G. Reggio (eds) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, 9th International Conference, MoDELS 2006, Genoa, Italy, October 2006. LNCS 4199. Berlin: Springer-Verlag 16–26.

24. Hong, S., van den Goor, G. & Brinkkemper, S. 1993. A formal approach to the comparison of object-oriented analysis and design methodologies. Procs 26th HICSS. 689–698.

25. ISO/IEC. 1998. ISO/IEC 15474. CDIF Framework. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission.

26. ISO/IEC. 2007. ISO/IEC 24744. Software Engineering – Metamodel for Development Methodologies. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission.

27. Johnson, R. & Woolf, B. 1997. The type object pattern. Pattern Languages of Program Design 3. Boston: Addison-Wesley. 47–65.

28. Kühne, T. 2006. Matters of (meta-) modelling Software and Systems Modeling. 5(4): 369–385.

29. Lin, Y. & Ding, H. 2005. Ontology-based semantic annotation for semantic interoperability of process models Procs 2005 Int. Conf. on Computational Intelligence for Modelling. Control and Automation and Int. Conf. on Intelligent Agents Web Technologies and Internet Commerce (CIMCA-IAWTIC’05).

30. Lin, Y. & Sølvberg, A. 2007. Goal annotation of process models for semantic enrichment of process knowledge. In: J. Krogstie, A.L. Opdahl & G. Sindre (eds). CAiSE 2007. Springer-Verlag LNCS 4495. 355–369.

31. McGregor, J.D. &Korson, T. 1993. Supporting dimensions of classification in object-oriented design. J. Obj.-Oriented Programming. 5(9): 25–30.

32. Odell, J. 1994. Power Types. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming. 7(2): 8–12.

33. OMG. 1999. ad/99-06-09. Unified Modeling Language Specification version 1.3. Object Management Group.

34. OMG. 2001. formal/01-09-68 to formal/01-09-80 Unified Modelling Language Specification version 1.4 (13 documents). Available at www.omg.org. Accessed on 12th July 2002.

35. OMG. 2005. formal/05-07-04. Unified Modeling Language Specification: Superstructure version 2.0. Object Management Group.

36. OMG. 2006. formal/05-07-05. Unified Modeling Language Specification: Infrastructure version 2.0. Object Management Group.

37. Pirotte, A., Zimányi, E., Massart, D. & Yakusheva, T. 1994. Materialization: a powerful and ubiquitous abstraction pattern. In: J. Bocca, M. Jarke, C. Zaniolo (eds). Procs 20th Int. Conf. Very Large Data Bases (VLDB ’94). 630–641.

38. Ralyté, J. & Rolland, C. 2001. An approach for method engineering. Procs 20th Int. Conf on Conceptual Modelling (ER2001), LNCS 2224. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 471–484.

39. Rolland, C., Prakash, N. & Benjamen, A. 1999. A multi-model view of process modelling. Requirements Eng. J. 4(4): 169–187.

40. Saeki, M., Iguchi, K., Wen-yin, K. & Shinohara, M. 1993. A meta-model for representing software specification and design methods. Procs IFIP WG8.1 Conf on Information Systems Development Process. Come. 149–166.

41. Seidewitz, E. 2003. What Models Mean. IEEE Software. 20(5): 26–31.

42. van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S., Souer, J. & Versendaal, J. 2006. Situational implementation method for web-based content management system-applications: method engineering and validation in practice. Software Process: Improvement and Practice. 11(5): 521–538.

43. van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S. & Versendaal, J. 2007. Concepts for incremental method evolution: empirical exploration and validation in requirements management. In: J. Krogstie, A.L. Opdahl & G. Sindre (eds). CAiSE 2007. Springer-Verlag. LNCS 4495. 469–484.

44. Vrandeĉić, D., Völker, P.H., Duc, T.T. & Cimiano, P. 2006. A metamodel for annotations of ontology elements in OWL DL. Meta-Modelling and Ontologies. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Meta-Modelling WoMM 2006. LNI P-96: 109–123.

45. Whitmire, S. 1997. Object-Oriented Software Design Measurement. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

¹ The dashed arrow indicates the instance-of relationship.

² In SPEM, the name TaskDefinition is a synonym for what elsewhere we call simply Task.

³ Presenting her paper at the ME07 conference in Geneva in September 2007, in answer to a question, van de Weerd stated that she now acknowledged that the process data diagram is fully in the model domain and not the metamodel domain.

⁴ Much of the remainder of this section is taken verbatim from [21], with kind permission of IOS Press.