On the difference between analysis and design, and why it is relevant for the interpretation of models in Model Driven Engineering.

In this paper we try to clarify the confusions that lie around the widely used terms "analysis model" and "design model" in software engineering.In our experience, these confusions are the root of some difficulties that practitioners encounter in system modeling, and sometimes lead to bad engineering practices.Our approach consists of placing the duality of analysis and design within a three-dimensional modeling space.Models are classified according to the reality they represent (first dimension), the purpose of the model (second dimension) and the abstraction level expressed in the model (third dimension).This classification facilitates the interpretation of models and the comprehension of model transformations as shiftings within this space. INTRODUCTIONThe central message of MDE/MDA (Model Driven Engineering / Model Driven Architecture) is that we have to move the core of software development from program code to models, up to the point of building models that can be directly compiled and executed [Kleppe et al. 03, Mellor et al. 04].Models are nearer to human understanding than code, so that working with models will be less error-prone than working with programming languages.There are different kinds of models in software engineering: analysis and design models, structural and behavioral models, etc., so that it is of major importance to understand the meaning of each kind of model, how they are related, and how they evolve [Bézivin 05, Harel & Rumpe 04].Our goal in this work aims specifically at investigating the place of analysis and design models in model-driven software development.Roughly speaking, "analysis" designates some kind of understanding of a problem or situation, whereas "design" is related to the creation of a VOL. 8, NO.