... | ... | @@ -4,6 +4,21 @@ The Smart Mobility and Tourism (SMT) use case has been implemented in cooperatio |
|
|
The figure shows the SMT choreography specification by means of a BPMN2 Choreography Diagram.
|
|
|
The use case starts with the mobile application **STApp** detecting the current position of the user, and asking for which type of point of interest to visit and which type of transport mode to use. From this information, **Tourist Agent** initiates two parallel flows in order to retrieve the information required by the "Electronic Touristic Guide". In particular, the left-most branch retrieves smart mobility information according to the selected transport mode, while the right-most branch gathers touristic information. Finally, the two parallel flows are joined together to produce the data needed for the "Electronic Touristic Guide". Finally, the guide is shown to the user by means of **STApp**.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Experiment**
|
|
|
|
|
|
The experiment conducted for the SMT use case employed the following experimental units.
|
|
|
**Experimental unit 1:** *CHOReVOLUTION approach* -- full usage of the **CHOReVOLUTION** platform except for the development of the mobile application, which is out of the scope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Experimental unit 2:** *General-purpose enterprise-oriented technology* -- full usage of the development technology daily adopted by the Genoa partner, i.e., Microsoft .Net, C\#, and Microsoft Visual Studio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Experimental unit 3:** *Domain-specific system integration platform* -- full usage of the proprietary platform developed by the Genoa's partner, i.e., [e-miXer](www.e-mixer.com). It is a content and system integrator that is specific for the travel and mobility information domain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The technologies of the experimental units 2 and 3 were selected considering that the industrial partner was already familiar and skilled with them. It is clear that there exist many other equivalently powerful alternatives for units 2 and 3. However, opting for an alternative would have required a training effort that could not be afforded by the partner because of budget constraints. In any case, apart from budget constraints and assuming the possibility to opt for an alternative, we can argue that, whatever (reasonably) long the training could last, it would be not easy to reach the same level of expertise, hence possibly compromising the validity of the experiment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Results**
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Experiment results - Implementation phase**
|
... | ... | |