Mapping-Aware Megamodeling: Design Patterns and Laws

Diskin, Zinovy; Kokaly, Sahar; Maibaum, Tom

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02654-1_18

Cited by 17 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Given the retargeting of future work described above, it is not yet clear whether future development should be undertaken on the current pluto basis, however, or whether formal and theoretical work based on [8] will show a better way to proceed.) Manually implementing appropriate builders, as described, is routine, but we would further like to incorporate: wrappers to let builders invoke existing model transformation engines; auto-matic generation of builders from a megamodel expressed in an appropriate language such as MegaL/Forge [17]; connections with further megamodelling work such as [34,35]; generation of custom stamps from transformations; validation of orientation models; exploration of scalability, etc. By permitting, for low effort, trustworthy and fully incremental build of model-driven systems, this is a step towards continuous model-driven engineering, as requested, for example, in [32].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Connecting software build with maintaining consistency between models: towards sound, optimal, and flexible building from megamodels

Stevens

2020

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software build systems tackle the problem of building software from sources in a way which is sound (when a build completes successfully, the relations between the generated and source files are as specified) and optimal (only genuinely required rebuilding steps are done). In this paper, we explain and exploit the connection between software build and the megamodel consistency problem. The model-driven development of systems involves multiple models, metamodels and transformations. Transformations-which may be bidirectional-specify, and provide means to enforce, desired "consistency" relationships between models. We can describe the whole configuration using a megamodel. As development proceeds, and various models are modified, we need to be able to restore consistency in the megamodel, so that the consequences of decisions first recorded in one model are appropriately reflected in the others. At the same time, we need to minimise the amount of recomputation needed; in particular, we would like to avoid reapplying a transformation when no relevant changes have occurred in the models it relates. The megamodel consistency problem requires flexibility beyond what is found in conventional software build, because different results are obtained depending on which models are allowed to be modified and on the order and direction of transformation application. In this paper, we propose using an orientation model to make important choices explicit. We show how to extend the formalised build system pluto to provide a means of restoring consistency in a megamodel, that is, in appropriate senses, flexible, sound and optimal.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Connecting software build with maintaining consistency between models: towards sound, optimal, and flexible building from megamodels

Stevens

2020

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The generator is modeled by the EMFGenerator function which takes a designated genModel to produce the javaFiles which in turn defines an object-graph language CustomObjects for Custom and the functions CustomSerialize and CustomDeserialize for de-/serialization. For instance, deserialization would result in a 'transient' (in-memory) object graph to [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] be treated in a special manner during verification (megamodel versus system); see the interconnection aspect 'Transient artifacts'.…”

Section: -8mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Solution Model elements are semantically annotated by linking them to appropriate knowledge resources, e.g., pages on Wikipedia, DBpedia, or resources on schema.org. How exactly model elements exactly should be annotated and what sources to use, [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] depends, of course, on the specific megamodeling vocabulary. For instance, one could link languages or technologies to resources.…”

Section: Semantic Annotationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We assume XML document and schema to be readily bound in the XML module. The entity for the XML document needs to be duplicated and rebound in each of [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] the two instances so that we distinguish input and output documents of the XML transformation. Realization MegaL's import mechanism has essentially copy-and-paste semantics modulo the following refinements: bindings in the importing module override bindings of the imported module; entities of the imported module can be renamed; if a module is imported more than once into a module (directly or indirectly), then non-renamed declarations are only imported once.…”

Section: Modularized Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Realization MegaL/Xtext+IDE leverages the editor and selection framework of Eclipse in combination with the URI artifact providers discussed earlier. Eclipse provides an API for opening editors and jumping to text ranges, which is paired with IDE specific, [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Interconnected Linguistic Architecture AST-navigating artifact providers. Users may navigate by invoking that functionality from a context-sensitive menu; see Fig.…”

Section: Explorable Connectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interconnected Linguistic Architecture

Härtel

Lämmel

et al. 2017

Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The context of the reported research is the documentation of software technologies such as object/relational mappers, web-application frameworks, or code generators. We assume that documentation should model a macroscopic view on usage scenarios of technologies in terms of involved artifacts, leveraged software languages, transformation and conformance relationships, I/O behavior, and others. In previous work, we referred to such documentation also as 'linguistic architecture'. The corresponding models may also be referred to as 'megamodels' while adopting this term from the technological space of modeling/modeldriven engineering.This work is an inquiry into making such documentation more useful by means of connecting (mega)models, systems, and developer experience in several ways.To this end, we adopt an approach that is primarily based on prototyping (i.e., implementation of a megamodeling infrastructure with all conceivable connections) and experimentation with showcases (i.e., documentation of concrete software technologies).The knowledge gained by this research is a notion of interconnected linguistic architecture on the grounds of connecting primary model elements, inferred model elements, static and runtime system artifacts, traceability links, system contexts, knowledge resources, plugged interpretations of model elements, and IDE views. A corresponding suite of aspects of interconnected linguistic architecture is systematically described.As to the grounding of this research, we describe a literature survey which tracks scattered occurrences and thus demonstrates the relevance of the identified aspects of interconnected linguistic architecture. Further, we describe the MegaL/Xtext+IDE infrastructure which realizes interconnected linguistic architecture.The importance of this work lies in providing relatively formal, ontologically rich, navigable, and verifiable documentation of software technologies, thereby helping developers to better understand how to use technologies in new systems (prescriptive mode) or how technologies are used in existing systems (descriptive mode). specific modeling language (with linguistic architecture or technology documentation as domain) and a knowledge representation language.Research objective: making megamodels more useful Models of linguistic architecture, in order to be useful as documentation, should properly help developers to better understand how to use technologies in new systems (prescriptive mode) or how technologies are used in existing systems (descriptive mode). Megamodels, in general and, in the case of models of linguistic architecture, in particular, reside at a high level of abstraction. Thus, the key question is this: How to make megamodels useful enough for creating or understanding systems, as far as technology usage is concerned? A subordinated question is this: How to exactly perform megamodeling? Consider Fig 2 for preparing for a deeper discussion of the use of linguistic architecture in software development.

show abstract

Interpretation of Linguistic Architecture

Lämmel

Varanovich

2014

Modelling Foundations and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mapping-Aware Megamodeling: Design Patterns and Laws

Cited by 17 publications

References 27 publications

Connecting software build with maintaining consistency between models: towards sound, optimal, and flexible building from megamodels

Connecting software build with maintaining consistency between models: towards sound, optimal, and flexible building from megamodels

Interconnected Linguistic Architecture

Interpretation of Linguistic Architecture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About