A mapping language from models to DI diagrams
Pages 454 - 468
Abstract
The OMG MOF 2.0 standard is used to define the abstract syntax of software modeling languages while the UML 2.0 Diagram Interchange (DI) describes the concrete syntax of models. However, very few tools support the DI standard, leading to interoperability problems. The primary reason for this is the lack of a formal way to describe the relationship between the abstract metamodel and its corresponding diagrams. In this article, we present a language to describe mappings between modeling languages and diagrams, some example mappings and our experience in using them. Better and correct support for DI would ease interchange of visual models and hasten the adoption of model-driven development.
References
[1]
D. H. Akehurst and S. Kent. A Relational Approach to Defining Transformations in a Metamodel. In J.-M. Jézéquel, H. Hussmann, and S. Cook, editors, Proc. UML 2002 - The Unified Modeling Language. Model Engineering, Languages, Concepts, and Tools. 5th International Conference, Dresden, Germany, volume 2460 of LNCS, pages 243-258. Springer, 2002.
[2]
Marcus Alanen, Torbjörn Lundkvist, and Ivan Porres. Reconciling Diagrams After Executing Model Transformations. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2006), Dijon, France, April 2006.
[3]
R. Bardohl, H. Ehrig, J. de Lara, and G. Taentzer. Integrating Meta Modelling with Graph Transformation for Efficient Visual Language Definition and Model Manipulation. In Springer, editor, Proceedings of the Fundamental Aspects of Software Engineering, 7th Intl. Conference, FASE 2004, pages 214-228, 2004.
[4]
J. Bézivin. On the Unification Power of Models. Springer Journal on Software and Systems Modeling, 3(4), 2004.
[5]
Edgars Celms, Audris Kalnins, and Lelde Lace. Diagram Definition Facilities Based on Metamodel Mappings, October 2003. Invited talk at the Third OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling.
[6]
Sitt Sen Chok and KimMarriott. Automatic Generation of Intelligent Diagram Editors. ACM Transactions Computer-Human Interaction, 10(3):244-276, 2003.
[7]
J. de Lara and H. Vangheluwe. Using Meta-Modelling and Graph Grammars to Process GPSS Models. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 72(3), 2003.
[8]
Péter Domokos and Dániel Varró. An Open Visualization Framework for Metamodel-Based Modeling Languages. In Tom Mens, Andy Schürr, and Gabriele Taentzer, editors, Proc. GraBaTs 2002, International Workshop on Graph-Based Tools, volume 72 of ENTCS, pages 78-87, Barcelona, Spain, October 7-8 2002. Elsevier.
[9]
Karsten Ehrig, Claudia Ermel, Stefan Hänsgen, and Gabriele Taentzer. Towards Graph Transformation Based Generation of Visual Editors Using Eclipse. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 127(4):127-143, 2005.
[10]
Marcos Didonet Del Fabro, Jean Bzivin, Frdric Jouault, Erwan Breton, and Guillaume Gueltas. AMW: A Generic Model Weaver. In Proceedings of the 1re Journe sur l'Ingnierie Dirige par les Modles (IDM05), 2005.
[11]
Frédéric Fondement and Thomas Baar. Making Metamodels Aware of Concrete Syntax. In European Conference on Model Driven Architecture (ECMDA), volume 3748 of LNCS, pages 190 - 204, 2005.
[12]
Jan Hendrik Hausmann and Stuart Kent. Visualizing model mappings in UML. In SoftVis '03: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM symposium on Software visualization, pages 169-178, New York, NY, USA, 2003. ACM Press.
[13]
Audris Kalnins, Janis Barzdins, and Edgars Celms. Basics of Model Transformation Language MOLA. In Workshop on Model Transformation and Execution in the Context of MDA (ECOOP 2004), June 2004.
[14]
Oliver Köth and Mark Minas. Structure, Abstraction, and Direct Manipulation in Diagram Editors. LNCS, 2317:290-304, 2002.
[15]
Lelde Lace, Edgars Celms, and Audris Kalnins. Diagram Definition Facilities in a Generic Modeling Tool. In International Conference on Modelling and Simulation of Business systems, pages 220-224, 2003.
[16]
Johan Lilius, Tomas Lillqvist, Torbjörn Lundkvist, Ian Oliver, Ivan Porres, Kim Sandström, Glenn Sveholm, and Asim Pervez Zaka. An Architecture Exploration Environment for System on Chip Design. Nordic Journal of Computing, 2006. To appear.
[17]
Torbjörn Lundkvist. Diagram Reconciliation and Interchange in a Modeling Tool. Master's Thesis in Computer Science, Department of Computer Science, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland, November 2005.
[18]
K. Marriot and B. Meyer. Visual Language Theory. Springer, 1998.
[19]
OMG. MOF 2.0 Query / View / Transformation Final Adopted Specification. OMG Document ptc/05-11-01, available at www.omg.org, 2005.
[20]
OMG. UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification, August 2005. Document formal/05-07-04. Available at http://www.omg.org/.
[21]
OMG. Unified Modeling Language: Diagram Interchange version 2.0, June 2005. OMG document ptc/05-06-04. Available at http://www.omg.org.
[22]
OMG. Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification, version 2.0, January 2006. Document formal/06-01-01, available at http://www.omg.org/.
[23]
Octavian Patrascoiu. YATL:Yet Another Transformation Language. In Proceedings of the 1st European MDA Workshop, MDA-IA, pages 83-90. University of Twente, the Nederlands, January 2004.
[24]
Guus Ramackers. OMG issue 7663. http://www.omg.org/issues/issue7663.txt.
[25]
Dániel Varró. Automatic Program Generation for and by Model Transformation Systems. In Hans-Jörg Kreowski and Peter Knirsch, editors, Proc. AGT 2002: Workshop on Applied Graph Transformation, pages 161-173, Grenoble, France, April 12-13 2002.
Recommendations
Reconciling diagrams after executing model transformations
SAC '06: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Applied computingIn this paper we discuss how to create and update diagrams after the execution of a model transformation. This is achieved by creating an independent diagram reconciliation tool component that is based on a mapping language from the abstract syntax to ...
Domain-specific language modelling with UML profiles by decoupling abstract and concrete syntaxes
UML profiling presents some acknowledged deficiencies, among which the lack of expressiveness of the profiled notations, together with the high coupling between abstract and concrete syntaxes outstand. These deficiencies may cause distress among UML-...
Mapping visual notations to MOF compliant models with QVT relations
SAC '07: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on Applied computingModel-centric methodologies rely on the definition of domain-specific modeling languages for being able to create domain-specific models. With MOF the OMG adopted a standard which provides the essential constructs for the definition of semantic language ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Sponsors
- IEEE-CS\DATC: The IEEE Computer Society
- SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering
- DISI - Universita di Genova: Dipartimento di Informatica e Scienze dell'Informazione
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Berlin, Heidelberg
Publication History
Published: 01 October 2006
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Article
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 144 of 506 submissions, 28%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 15 Jan 2025