A novel approach to modeling Zvezdan Protić, Tom Verhoeff, Mark van den Brand.
-
Upload
sheena-french -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of A novel approach to modeling Zvezdan Protić, Tom Verhoeff, Mark van den Brand.
A novel approach to modeling
Zvezdan Protić, Tom Verhoeff, Mark van den Brand
Preliminaries MDSE Models
A model is an abstraction of System Under Study (SUS) that can be used for reasoning about that SUS
Metamodels Syntactic carrier of models
Metametamodels
Popular Metametamodels having “layered” architecture
PAGE 3
MOF (UML) Ecore (Eclipse) GME (Generic Modeling Environment) metametamodel
Some reasons for a new approach In traditional modeling approaches a metametamodel is an
instance of itself Thus, conceptually, an <<instance-of>> relation can
have two interpretations But those interpretations are not clearly stated for traditional
metametamodels “A metamodel is simply the model of a model, and if that model is itself a metamodel,
then the metamodel is in fact a meta-metamodel.[4] Got it? If not, don't worry about it, as it's really just an academic issue anyway.” EMF Eclipse Modeling Framework (2nd Edition)
The relationship instantiation problem E.g. in MOF the instance of an <<association>> is a
<<link>> But link does not contain attributes of association, e.g. cardinalities,
unless it inherits from <<association>>, thus an instance of a link cannot be used as a link again
<<instance-of>> problem of the layered architecture
PAGE 5
Our MetaMetaModel
PAGE 6
Example Metamodel
PAGE 7
State Transition
Label:String
From
To0..1
0..1
Example model (with relations to its metamodel)
PAGE 8
A B
SM1
Similarities to UML 2.4
Implementing a layered architecture in our approach
PAGE 10
MetaMetaModel
MetaModel2 Model2conforms-to
instance-of
instance-of
MetaModel3 Model3
ModelMetaModel
conforms-to
Transform (interpret)
conforms-to
Transform (interpret)
instance-of
instance-of
instance-of
instance-of
Why is our approach a plausible approach? Ethan K. Jackson, and Janos Sztipanovits: Formalizing the Structural Semantics of Domain-
specific Modeling Languages, Journal of Software and System Modeling, 2009 An algebraic approach to defining the syntax and structural semantics of domain specific
modeling languages (DSML) A DSLM is a pair of a domain and interpretations.
A domain is specified similar to a language as a tuple of: concepts that can be used to build models (Y), a set of all realizations of models (RY), and a set of constraints over RY Concepts, are described by using term algebras Constraints are described by using formulas of a logic Terms can be transformed into formulas The validity of a model is checked by making a deductive closure of an union of
constraint formulas and term formulas An interpretation is a transformation from a domain to a domain
Formally, an interpretation is a triple of source domain signature, a target domain signature, and the set of formulas in the same logic as the one used to specify constraints
A metametamodel is just another domain, that has, as concepts, all the concepts that can be used in other domains
This means it is very easy to change the metametamodel A metamodel is a model of a metametamodel, such that there is an interpretation that can
generate a domain based on that metamodel A metametamodel is meta-circular if it has a realization that when interpreted into a
domain, can be interpreted back into the metametamodel domain
Applications Model comparison Metamodel and Model co-evolution
Metamodel-independent model comparison A model comparison is the process of
determining differences between two models Model differences are represented by a
another (differences) model that conforms to a differences metamodel
The model repositories are bound to have large number of metamodels that models conform to Metamodel-dependent model comparison may not
suffice
Our approach to model comparison:metamodel of model differences
Metamodel independent metamodel and model co-evolution
MM1_v1 MM1_v2
M1 M1_v2
conforms-to
evolution
conforms-to
co-evolution
A common approach to co-evolution
Why we propose SOT-s An example operation: Make Reference Composite What are some possible solutions:
Copy all referenced entities into the new containers? Move all referenced entities into the new containers? Assign all entities of the referenced type to containers of the
referees? Or let the user decide which entities should stay in old
containers, and which entities should move ?
Metamodel for metamodels
PAGE 18
An example metamodel in “natural” and “transformed” representation
PAGE 19
Advantages of our approach All the atomic differences between
metamodels are known Thus, we can create one transformation that co-
evolves models By using SOT, the users that are co-evolving
models can easily adapt the transformation to a particular situation
Comments, Questions, Suggestions ?