Liping Mu
ABSTRACT
Originally, meta-models were used to specify the structure (abstract syntax) of modelling languages. This is reflected both in meta-languages like MOF and Ecore, and the four-layer meta-model architecture. Presently, meta-modelling is used for specification of complete languages. In this situation, it turns out that the traditional meta-languages are not always expressive enough to capture all language aspects. This usually implies the use of more than one metalanguage in the meta-model architecture to cover the different language aspects. There are many approaches to address this challenge. In this paper, we analyze these approaches, and based on this analysis, we re-think the meta-model architecture focusing on complete language specifications. In our meta-model architecture, each aspect of a language conforms to an aspect-specific meta-language at the level above, and models can reside at different levels depending on their context and use. This meta-model architecture is easier to understand, more flexible and more extensible; therefore it may be useful in the design of meta-model-based language specification platforms, as well as for promoting the understanding of the principles of meta-modelling.
- C. Atkinson and T. Kühne. Model-driven development: A metamodeling foundation, 2003.Google Scholar
- J. Bézivin. On the unification of models. Software and Systems Modeling, 4(2):171--188, May 2005.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Bézivin, G. Dupé, F. Jouault, G. Pitette, and J. Rougui. First experiments with the ATL model transformation language: Transforming XSLT into XQuery. In OOPSLA 2003 Workshop, Anaheim, California., 2003.Google Scholar
- T. Clark, P. Sammut, and J. Willans. Applied Metamodeling -- A Foundation for Language Driven Development. Second Edition. Ceteva, 2008.Google Scholar
- Z. Drey, C. Faucher, F. Fleurey, V. Mahé, and D. Vojtisek. Kermeta language Reference manual, February 2009.Google Scholar
- J.-M. Favre. Foundations of meta-pyramids: Languages vs. metamodels - episode ii: Story of thotus the baboon. In Language Engineering for Model-Driven Software Development, 2004.Google Scholar
- GMF developers. Eclipse Graphical Modeling Framework, 2008. See http://www.eclipse.org/gmf.Google Scholar
- R. Gronback. Eclipse Modeling Project: A Domain-Specific Language (DSL) Toolkit (Eclipse Series). Addison-Wesley Professional, first edition, March 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. C. Gronback and E. Merks. Model Driven Architecture at Eclipse. Upgrade. The European Journal for the Informatics Professional, IX(2):35--39, 2008. Available at http://www.upgrade-cepis.org/issues/2008/2/upg9-2Presentation.pdf.Google Scholar
- T. Hildenbr and R. Gitzel. A taxonomy of metamodel hierarchies, 2005.Google Scholar
- F. Jouault and J. Bézivin. KM3: a DSL for Metamodel Specification. In Proceedings of 8th IFIP International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems, number 4037 in LNCS, pages 171--185, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Jouault, J. Bézivin, and I. Kurtev. TCS: a DSL for the Specification of Textual Concrete Syntaxes in Model Engineering. In GPCE'06: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Generative programming and Component Engineering, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. P. Nytun, A. Prinz, and M. S. Tveit. Automatic generation of modelling tools. In A. Rensink and J. Warmer, editors, ECMDA-FA, volume 4066 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 268--283. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- OMG. Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Core Specification. Object Management Group, Oct. 2003. ptc/03-10-04.Google Scholar
- OMG. Model Driven Architecture Guide, Version 1.0.1. Object Management Group, June 2003. omg/03-06-01.Google Scholar
- OMG. Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation Specification Final Adopted Specification ptc/05-11-01. OMG document, Object Management Group, 2005. Available at http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/05-11-01.pdf.Google Scholar
- OMG. OCL 2.0 Specification. Object Management Group, June (2005). ptc/2005-06-06.Google Scholar
- OMG. Unified Modeling Language: Diagram Interchange version 2.0, ptc/05-06-04. OMG document, Object Management Group, 2005. Available at http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/05-06-04.pdf.Google Scholar
- OMG. UML Infrastructure Specification, V2.1.2. Object Management Group, Nov. 2007. ptc/06-10-06.Google Scholar
- OMG Editor. Diagram definition request for proposal. Technical report, Object Management Group, 2007.Google Scholar
- D. Steinberg, F. Budinsky, M. Paternostro, and E. Merks. EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework. Eclipse Series. Addison-Wesley Professional, second edition, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Specification of modelling languages in a flexible meta-model architecture
Recommendations
Model-driven engineering with domain-specific meta-modelling languages
Domain-specific modelling languages are normally defined through general-purpose meta-modelling languages like the MOF. While this is satisfactory for many model-driven engineering (MDE) projects, several researchers have identified the need for domain-...
Domain-specific textual meta-modelling languages for model driven engineering
ECMFA'12: Proceedings of the 8th European conference on Modelling Foundations and ApplicationsDomain-specific modelling languages are normally defined through general-purpose meta-modelling languages like the MOF. While this is satisfactory for many Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) projects, several researchers have identified the need for domain-...
Specifications, not meta-models
GaMMa '06: Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Global integrated model managementIn a model-driven development, software engineers will have to manage multiple artifacts expressed in several languages. Current meta-modelling and concrete syntax standards fail to adequately preserve a link between artifacts and the languages in which ...
Comments