![](bg6.png)
guidelines and best practices implemented in
ADOxx will be taken into consideration. Moreover,
further literature will be sought aimed at
implementing the mapping rule which then allow to
establish and maintain executability of the transferal
management platform.
Subsequently, we reach the Evaluation phase.
Here the artefact is evaluated by using the well-
known Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
which provides a valid and reliable measure to
predict acceptance or adoption of new technologies
by end users (Davis et al. 1989; Davis 1989).
Additionally, TAM is a commonly used model to
measure technology acceptance (King and He 2006).
Finally, the Conclusion phase, in which insights
gained from the work are reported and future
research will be addressed.
6 EXPECTED OUTCOME
The work aims at adopting a model-driven approach
to create and maintain a transferal management
platform for supporting the collaboration between
acute hospitals and rehabilitation clinics to optimize
transferal management. Thus, the expected outcome
is a framework which allows the development of the
transferal management platform being highly
configurable, e.g. to accommodate new clinical
pathways, and to permit a given pathway to
(slightly) differ between hospitals. Moreover, the
platform should be easily extendable to include
additional functions to meet future needs.
All domain-specific aspects will be described
declaratively in a reference or application model.
The elements in the application model will be
mapped to corresponding elements in an application
framework to obtain the executable platform. The
mapping will be enabled by mapping rules that are
defined on the constructs of a domain-specific
language (DSL). In this way, it can be assured that
executable code derived from all
reference/application models expressed with the
DSL. The mappings from DSL constructs to
application framework elements will be specified
using the description logic semantics to enable the
modelling tools supporting the users in creating
consistent and meaningful models.
REFERENCES
Cadavid, J. J.; Quintero, J. B.; Lopez, D. E.; Hincapié, J.
A. (2009): A Domain Specific Language to Generate
Web Applications. In: Antonio Brogi, João Araújo und
Raquel Anaya (Hg.): Memorias de la XII Conferencia
Iberoamericana de Software Engineering (CIbSE
2009), Medell\’ın, Colombia, Abril 13-17, 2009, S.
139–144.
Davis, F. D. (1989): Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease
of Use, and User Acceptance of Information
Technology. In: MIS Q 13 (3), S. 319–340. Online
verfügbar unter http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249008.
Davis, F. D.; Bagozzi, R. P.; Warshaw, P. R. (1989): User
Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison
of Two Theoretical Models. In: Management Science
35 (8), S. 982–1003. Online verfügbar unter
http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:35:y
:1989:i:8:p:982-1003.
Jouault F.; Bézivin, J. (2006): Km3: a dsl for metamodel
specification. In: In proc. of 8th FMOODS, LNCS
4037: Springer, S. 171–185.
Karagiannis, D.; Kühn, H.: Metamodelling Platforms. In:
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference
EC-Web 2002 – Dexa 2002, Aix-en-Provence, France,
2002, LNCS 2455: Springer-Verlag, S. 182.
Karagiannis, D.; Visic, N. (2011): Next Generation of
Modelling Platforms. In: Janis Grabis und Marite
Kirikova (Hg.): Perspectives in Business Informatics
Research, Bd. 90: Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Lecture
Notes in Business Information Processing), S. 19–28.
Online verfügbar unter http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-642-24511-4_2.
Kern, H. (2008): The Interchange of (Meta)Models
between MetaEdit+ and Eclipse EMF Using M3-
Level-Based Bridges. In: Jeff Gray, Jonathan Sprinkle,
Juha-Pekka Tolvanen und Matti Rossi (Hg.): 8th
OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling at
OOPSLA 2008: University of Alabama at
Birmingham, S. 14–19.
Kern, H.; Hummel, A.; Kühne, S. (2011): Towards a
Comparative Analysis of Meta-Metamodels. In:
Proceedings of 11th Workshop on Domain-Specific
Modeling (DSM’11). Online verfügbar unter
http://www.dsmforum.org/events/DSM11/Papers/kern.
pdf.
King, W. R.; He, J. (2006): A Meta-analysis of the
Technology Acceptance Model. In: Inf. Manage. 43
(6), S. 740–755. Online verfügbar unter
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003.
Laarman, A.; Kurtev, I. (2010): Ontological
Metamodeling with Explicit Instantiation. In: Mark
Brand, Dragan Gašević und Jeff Gray (Hg.): Software
Language Engineering, Bd. 5969: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), S.
174–183. Online verfügbar unter http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-642-12107-4_14.
Lodderstedt, T.; Basin, D.; Doser, J. (2002): SecureUML:
A UML-Based Modeling Language for Model-Driven
Security. In: Springer, S. 426–441.
Mernik, M.; Heering, J.; Sloane, A. M. (2005): When and
How to Develop Domain-specific Languages. In:
ACM Comput. Surv. 37 (4), S. 316–344. Online
IC3K2014-DoctoralConsortium
16