Modeling Languages for Internet of Things (IoT) Applications: A Comparative Analysis Study
Modeling languages have gained ever-increasing importance for the Internet of Things (IoT) domain for improving the productivity and quality of IoT developments. In this study, we analyzed 32 different modeling languages that have been designed for IoT software development in terms of a set of requi...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2023-03-01
|
| Series: | Mathematics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/5/1263 |
| _version_ | 1797614850171469824 |
|---|---|
| author | Sadik Arslan Mert Ozkaya Geylani Kardas |
| author_facet | Sadik Arslan Mert Ozkaya Geylani Kardas |
| author_sort | Sadik Arslan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Modeling languages have gained ever-increasing importance for the Internet of Things (IoT) domain for improving the productivity and quality of IoT developments. In this study, we analyzed 32 different modeling languages that have been designed for IoT software development in terms of a set of requirements that were categorized into three groups: language definition, language features, and tool support. Some key findings are as follows: (1) performance is the most supported quality property (28%); (2) most languages offer a visual notation set only, while 6% provide both textual and visual notation sets; (3) most languages (88%) lack formally precise semantic definitions; (4) most languages (94%) support the physical, deployment, and logical modeling viewpoints, while the behavior, logical, and information viewpoints are rarely supported; (5) almost none of the languages enable extensibility; (6) Java (34%) and C (21%) are the most preferred programming languages for model transformation; (7) consistency (77%) and completeness (64%) are the most supported properties for the automated checking of models; and (8) most languages (81%) are not supported with any websites for sharing case studies, source code, tools, tutorials, etc. The analysis results can be useful for language engineers, practitioners, and tool vendors for better understanding the existing languages for IoT, their weak and strong points, and IoT industries’ needs in future language and modeling toolset developments. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T07:18:05Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ee2d8fd4eeff45b0b31816d81d118973 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2227-7390 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T07:18:05Z |
| publishDate | 2023-03-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Mathematics |
| spelling | doaj.art-ee2d8fd4eeff45b0b31816d81d1189732023-11-17T08:10:27ZengMDPI AGMathematics2227-73902023-03-01115126310.3390/math11051263Modeling Languages for Internet of Things (IoT) Applications: A Comparative Analysis StudySadik Arslan0Mert Ozkaya1Geylani Kardas2International Computer Institute, Ege University, Izmir 35100, TurkeyComputer Engineering Department, Yeditepe University, Istanbul 34755, TurkeyInternational Computer Institute, Ege University, Izmir 35100, TurkeyModeling languages have gained ever-increasing importance for the Internet of Things (IoT) domain for improving the productivity and quality of IoT developments. In this study, we analyzed 32 different modeling languages that have been designed for IoT software development in terms of a set of requirements that were categorized into three groups: language definition, language features, and tool support. Some key findings are as follows: (1) performance is the most supported quality property (28%); (2) most languages offer a visual notation set only, while 6% provide both textual and visual notation sets; (3) most languages (88%) lack formally precise semantic definitions; (4) most languages (94%) support the physical, deployment, and logical modeling viewpoints, while the behavior, logical, and information viewpoints are rarely supported; (5) almost none of the languages enable extensibility; (6) Java (34%) and C (21%) are the most preferred programming languages for model transformation; (7) consistency (77%) and completeness (64%) are the most supported properties for the automated checking of models; and (8) most languages (81%) are not supported with any websites for sharing case studies, source code, tools, tutorials, etc. The analysis results can be useful for language engineers, practitioners, and tool vendors for better understanding the existing languages for IoT, their weak and strong points, and IoT industries’ needs in future language and modeling toolset developments.https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/5/1263Internet of Thingsmodelingmodeling languagesmodeling toolsetpractitioners |
| spellingShingle | Sadik Arslan Mert Ozkaya Geylani Kardas Modeling Languages for Internet of Things (IoT) Applications: A Comparative Analysis Study Mathematics Internet of Things modeling modeling languages modeling toolset practitioners |
| title | Modeling Languages for Internet of Things (IoT) Applications: A Comparative Analysis Study |
| title_full | Modeling Languages for Internet of Things (IoT) Applications: A Comparative Analysis Study |
| title_fullStr | Modeling Languages for Internet of Things (IoT) Applications: A Comparative Analysis Study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Modeling Languages for Internet of Things (IoT) Applications: A Comparative Analysis Study |
| title_short | Modeling Languages for Internet of Things (IoT) Applications: A Comparative Analysis Study |
| title_sort | modeling languages for internet of things iot applications a comparative analysis study |
| topic | Internet of Things modeling modeling languages modeling toolset practitioners |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/5/1263 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sadikarslan modelinglanguagesforinternetofthingsiotapplicationsacomparativeanalysisstudy AT mertozkaya modelinglanguagesforinternetofthingsiotapplicationsacomparativeanalysisstudy AT geylanikardas modelinglanguagesforinternetofthingsiotapplicationsacomparativeanalysisstudy |