DOCSLIB.ORG

Metaobjectfacility(MOF) Specification

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Metaobjectfacility(MOF) Specification MetaObjectFacility(MOF) Specification Version 1.4 April 2002 Copyright 1997-1999, DSTC (Cooperative Research Centre for Enterprise Distributed Systems Technology) Copyright 1997-1999, Electronic Data Systems Copyright 1997-1999, IBM Corporation Copyright 1997-1999, International Computers Limited Copyright 1997-1999, Objectivity, Inc. Copyright 2002, Object Management Group Copyright 1997-1999, Oracle Corporation Copyright 1997-1999, Platinum Technology, Inc. Copyright 1997-1999, Rational Software Corporation Copyright 1997-1999, System Software Associates Copyright 1997-1999, Unisys Corporation The companies listed above have granted to the Object Management Group, Inc. (OMG) a nonexclusive, royalty-free, paid up, worldwide license to copy and distribute this document and to modify this document and distribute copies of the modified version. Each of the copyright holders listed above has agreed that no person shall be deemed to have infringed the copyright in the included material of any such copyright holder by reason of having used the specification set forth herein or having conformed any computer software to the specification. PATENT The attention of adopters is directed to the possibility that compliance with or adoption of OMG specifications may require use of an invention covered by patent rights. OMG shall not be responsible for identifying patents for which a license may be required by any OMG specification, or for conducting legal inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those patents that are brought to its attention. OMG specifications are prospective and advisory only. Prospective users are responsible for protecting themselves against liability for infringement of patents. NOTICE The information contained in this document is subject to change without notice. The material in this document details an Object Management Group specification in accordance with the license and notices set forth on this page. This document does not represent a commitment to implement any portion of this specification in any company's products. WHILE THE INFORMATION IN THIS PUBLICATION IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE, THE OBJECT MAN- AGEMENT GROUP AND THE COMPANIES LISTED ABOVE MAKE NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH REGARD TO THIS MATERIAL INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY OF TITLE OR OWNERSHIP, IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE. In no event shall The Object Management Group or any of the companies listed above be liable for errors contained herein or for indirect, incidental, special, consequential, reliance or cover damages, including loss of profits, revenue, data or use, incurred by any user or any third party. The copyright holders listed above acknowledge that the Object Management Group (acting itself or through its designees) is and shall at all times be the sole entity that may authorize developers, suppliers and sellers of computer software to use certification marks, trademarks or other special designations to indicate compliance with these materials. This document contains information which is pro- tected by copyright. All Rights Reserved. No part of this work covered by copyright herein may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means--graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems--without permission of the copyright owner. RESTRICTED RIGHTS LEGEND. Use, duplication, or disclosure by government is subject to restrictions as set forth in subdivision (c) (1) (ii) of the Right in Technical Data and Computer Software Clause at DFARS 252.227.7013 OMG®and Object Management are registered trademarks of the Object Management Group, Inc. Object Request Broker, OMG IDL, ORB, CORBA, CORBAfacilities, CORBAservices, COSS, and IIOP are trademarks of the Object Management Group, Inc. X/Open is a trademark of X/Open Company Ltd. The UML logo is a trademark of Rational Software Corp. ISSUE REPORTING All OMG specifications are subject to continuous review and improvement. As part of this process we encourage readers to report any ambiguities, inconsistencies, or inaccuracies they may find by completing the Issue Reporting Form listed on the main web page http://www.omg.org, under Documents & Specifications, Report a Bug/Issue. TableofContents Preface. ix 1. MOF Usage Scenarios . 1-1 1.1 Overview . 1-1 1.2 Software Development Scenarios. 1-2 1.3 Type Management Scenarios . 1-4 1.4 Information Management Scenarios. 1-6 1.5 Data Warehouse Management Scenarios . 1-6 2. MOF Conceptual Overview . 2-1 2.1 Overview . 2-1 2.2 Metadata Architectures. 2-1 2.2.1 Four Layer Metadata Architectures . 2-2 2.2.2 The MOF Metadata Architecture . 2-3 2.2.3 MOF Metamodeling Terminology . 2-4 2.3 The MOF Model - Metamodeling Constructs. 2-6 2.3.1 Classes . 2-6 2.3.2 Associations . 2-9 2.3.3 Aggregation . 2-11 2.3.4 References . 2-12 2.3.5 DataTypes . 2-14 2.3.6 Packages . 2-14 2.3.7 Constraints and Consistency . 2-17 2.3.8 Miscellaneous Metamodeling Constructs . 2-19 2.4 Metamodels and Mappings. 2-20 2.4.1 Abstract and Concrete Mappings . 2-21 April 2002 OMG-Meta Object Facility, v1.4 i 2.4.2 The MOF Metamodel to IDL Mapping. 2-22 2.4.3 The MOF Metamodel to XML Mappings. 2-22 2.4.4 Mappings of the MOF Model . 2-22 3. MOF Model and Interfaces . 3-1 3.1 Overview . 3-1 3.2 How the MOF Model is Described. 3-2 3.2.1 Classes . 3-3 3.2.2 Associations . 3-8 3.2.3 DataTypes. 3-9 3.2.4 Exceptions . 3-10 3.2.5 Constants . 3-10 3.2.6 Constraints . 3-10 3.2.7 UML Diagrams. 3-10 3.3 The Structure of the MOF Model . 3-11 3.3.1 The MOF Model Package. 3-11 3.3.2 The MOF Model Service IDL. 3-11 3.3.3 The MOF Model Structure . 3-13 3.3.4 The MOF Model Containment Hierarchy. 3-14 3.4 MOF Model Classes. 3-15 3.4.1 ModelElement . 3-15 3.4.2 Namespace . 3-21 3.4.3 GeneralizableElement. 3-24 3.4.4 TypedElement. 3-29 3.4.5 Classifier. 3-30 3.4.6 Class . 3-30 3.4.7 DataType. 3-32 3.4.8 PrimitiveType . 3-33 3.4.9 CollectionType . 3-34 3.4.10 EnumerationType . 3-35 3.4.11 AliasType . 3-36 3.4.12 StructureType . 3-37 3.4.13 StructureField . 3-37 3.4.14 Feature . 3-38 3.4.15 StructuralFeature . 3-40 3.4.16 Attribute . 3-42 3.4.17 Reference . 3-43 3.4.18 BehavioralFeature. 3-45 3.4.19 Operation . 3-45 3.4.20 Exception . 3-48 3.4.21 Association . 3-48 ii OMG-Meta Object Facility, v1.4 April 2002 3.4.22 AssociationEnd. 3-51 3.4.23 Package. 3-54 3.4.24 Import . 3-55 3.4.25 Parameter . 3-58 3.4.26 Constraint . 3-59 3.4.27 Constant . 3-62 3.4.28 Tag . 3-63 3.5 MOF Model Associations. 3-66 3.5.1 Contains . 3-66 3.5.2 Generalizes . 3-68 3.5.3 RefersTo . 3-69 3.5.4 Exposes. 3-70 3.5.5 IsOfType. 3-71 3.5.6 CanRaise. 3-72 3.5.7 Aliases . 3-73 3.5.8 Constrains. 3-74 3.5.9 DependsOn . 3-75 3.5.10 AttachesTo . 3-77 3.6 MOF Model Data Types. 3-78 3.6.1 PrimitiveTypes used in the MOF Model . 3-78 3.6.2 MultiplicityType . 3-78 3.6.3 VisibilityKind . 3-80 3.6.4 DirectionKind . 3-80 3.6.5 ScopeKind . 3-80 3.6.6 AggregationKind . 3-81 3.6.7 EvaluationKind. 3-81 3.7 MOF Model Exceptions . 3-81 3.7.1 NameNotFound. 3-81 3.7.2 NameNotResolved . 3-82 3.8 MOF Model Constants . 3-82 3.8.1 Unbounded . 3-82 3.8.2 The Standard DependencyKinds. 3-83 3.9 MOF Model Constraints. 3-83 3.9.1 MOF Model Constraints and other M2 Level Semantics . 3-83 3.9.2 Notational Conventions . 3-84 3.9.3 OCL Usage in the MOF Model specification . 3-86 3.9.4 The MOF Model Constraints . 3-88 3.9.5 Semantic specifications for some Operations, derived Attributes and Derived Associations . 3-105 April 2002 OMG-Meta Object Facility, v1.4 iii 3.9.6 OCL Helper functions. 3-111 3.10 The PrimitiveTypes Package . 3-114 3.10.1 Boolean. 3-114 3.10.2 Integer. ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Model Transformation Language of the VIATRA2 Framework
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Science of Computer Programming 68 (2007) 214–234 www.elsevier.com/locate/scico The model transformation language of the VIATRA2 framework Daniel´ Varro´ ∗, Andras´ Balogh Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Department of Measurement and Information Systems, H-1117, Magyar tudosok krt. 2., Budapest, Hungary OptXware Research and Development LLC, Budapest, Hungary Received 15 August 2006; received in revised form 17 April 2007; accepted 14 May 2007 Available online 5 July 2007 Abstract We present the model transformation language of the VIATRA2 framework, which provides a rule- and pattern-based transformation language for manipulating graph models by combining graph transformation and abstract state machines into a single specification paradigm. This language offers advanced constructs for querying (e.g. recursive graph patterns) and manipulating models (e.g. generic transformation and meta-transformation rules) in unidirectional model transformations frequently used in formal model analysis to carry out powerful abstractions. c 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Model transformation; Graph transformation; Abstract state machines 1. Introduction The crucial role of model transformation (MT) languages and tools for the overall success of model-driven system development has been revealed in many surveys and papers during the recent years. To provide a standardized support for capturing queries, views and transformations between modeling languages defined by their standard MOF metamodels, the Object Management Group (OMG) has recently issued the QVT standard. QVT provides an intuitive, pattern-based, bidirectional model transformation language, which is especially useful for synchronization kind of transformations between semantically equivalent modeling languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Graphical Debugging of QVT Relations Using Transformation Nets
    Graphical Debugging of QVT Relations using Transformation Nets DIPLOMARBEIT zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Diplom-Ingenieur im Rahmen des Studiums Wirtschaftsinformatik eingereicht von Patrick Zwickl Matrikelnummer 0525849 an der Fakultat¨ fur¨ Informatik der Technischen Universitat¨ Wien Betreuung: Betreuerin: Univ.-Prof. Mag. DI Dr. Gerti Kappel Mitwirkung: DI(FH) Johannes Schonb¨ ock¨ Wien, 07.12.2009 (Unterschrift Verfasser) (Unterschrift Betreuer) Technische Universitat¨ Wien A-1040 Wien Karlsplatz 13 Tel. +43/(0)1/58801-0 http://www.tuwien.ac.at Erkl¨arung zur Verfassung der Arbeit Patrick Zwickl, Gr¨ohrmuhlgasse¨ 36E, 2700 Wiener Neustadt Hiermit erkl¨are ich, dass ich diese Arbeit selbst¨andig verfasst habe, dass ich die verwendeten Quellen und Hilfsmittel vollst¨andig angegeben habe und dass ich die Stellen der Arbeit einschließlich Tabellen, Karten und Abbildungen, die anderen Werken oder dem Internet im Wortlaut oder dem Sinn nach entnommen sind, auf jeden Fall unter Angabe der Quelle als Entlehnung kenntlich gemacht habe. Wien, 7. Dezember 2009 Patrick Zwickl i ii Danksagung Im Zuge meines Studium wurde ich von vielen Menschen, als Kommilitonen, Lehrende, Betreuuer, Freunde, Familie etc., begleitet. Dabei war es mir m¨oglich Unterstutzungen¨ auf verschiedensten Ebenen zu erhalten oder in einer guten Zusammenarbeit respektable Ergebnisse zu erzielen. Aufgrund der gr¨oßeren Zahl an Begleitern, m¨ochte ich mich in der Danksagung im Besonderen auf jene Un- terstutzer¨ beschr¨anken, die in einem uberdurchschnittlichen¨ Zusammenhang mit dieser Diplomarbeit stehen. Ich m¨ochte mich sehr herzlich fur¨ die engagierte Hilfe, Leitung und Supervision bei meinen Betreuuern O.Univ.-Prof. Mag. DI Dr. Gerti Kappel und Univ.- Ass. Mag. Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Metamodeling and Model Transformations in Modeling and Simulation
    Proceedings of the 2011 Winter Simulation Conference S. Jain, R. R. Creasey, J. Himmelspach, K. P. White, and M. Fu, eds. METAMODELING AND MODEL TRANSFORMATIONS IN MODELING AND SIMULATION Deniz Cetinkaya Alexander Verbraeck Systems Engineering Group, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management Delft University of Technology Jaffalaan 5, 2628BX, Delft, THE NETHERLANDS ABSTRACT Metamodeling and model transformations are the key concepts in Model Driven Development (MDD) approaches as they provide a mechanism for automated development of well structured and maintainable systems. However, neither defining a metamodel nor developing a model transformation is an easy task. In this paper, we provide an overview of metamodeling and model transformations in MDD and discuss about the use of a MDD approach in Modeling and Simulation (M&S). In order to support the development of successful model transformations, we define the criteria for the evaluation of model transformations. 1 INTRODUCTION In Model Driven Development (MDD), models are the primary artifacts of the development process and they represent the system on different levels of abstraction. A model is an abstract representation of a system defined in a modeling language, where a modeling language is a means of expressing systems in a formal and precise way by using diagrams, rules, symbols, signs, letters, numerals, etc.. Metamodeling is widely accepted as a superior way to describe models in MDD context. A metamodel is a definition of a modeling language, which should be defined in a modeling language as well (Sprinkle et al. 2007). A sound metamodel describes models in a well-defined manner. Model transformations are used to create new models based on the existing information throughout the MDD process (Sendall and Kozaczynski 2003).
    [Show full text]
  • Matters of Model Transformation
    Matters of Model Transformation Eugene Syriani January 2, 2009 Abstract Model transformation is at the center of current model-driven engineering research. The current state-of-the- art includes a plethora of techniques and tools for model transformations. One of the most popular approaches is based on graph rewriting. In this report, the most important foundations of graph transformation as well as some of the most efficient techniques for applying these transformations are reviewed. A comparison of the implementation of controlled or programmed graph transformation in various tools is also given. More declarative specifications of graph transformations are discussed. Finally, scalability of model transformation with non graph-based approaches is investigated. The goal of this literature review is to identify open problems and to serve as a starting point for new research. 1 Overview In model-driven engineering, models and transformations are first-class entities. A model represents an abstrac- tion of a real system, focusing on some of its properties. Models are used to specify, simulate, test, verify, and generate code for applications. In language engineering terms, a model conforms to a meta-model. A meta-model defines the abstract syntax and static semantics of a set (possibly infinite) of models. A model is thus typed by its meta-model that specifies its permissible syntax, often in the form of constraints. A common representation of meta-models uses the Unified Modelling Language (UML) Class Diagram notation [1] with Object Constraint Language (OCL) constraints [2]. Model transformation transforms a source model into a target model1, each conforming to their respective meta-model.
    [Show full text]
  • Metamodelling for MDA
    Metamodelling for MDA First International Workshop York, UK, November 2003 Proceedings Edited by Andy Evans Paul Sammut James S. Willans Table of Contents Preface ........................................................ 4 Principles Calling a Spade a Spade in the MDA Infrastructure ................... 9 Colin Atkinson and Thomas K¨uhne Do MDA Transformations Preserve Meaning? An investigation into preservingsemantics ........................................... 13 Anneke Kleppe and Jos Warmer MDA components: Challenges and Opportunities ..................... 23 Jean B´ezivin, S´ebastien G´erard, Pierre-Alain Muller and Laurent Rioux SafetyChallengesforModelDrivenDevelopment ..................... 42 N. Audsley, P. M. Conmy, S. K. Crook-Dawkins and R. Hawkins Invited talk: UML2 - a language for MDA (putting the U, M and L intoUML)?................................................... 61 Alan Moore Languages and Applications Using an MDA approach to model traceability within a modelling framework .................................................... 62 John Dalton, Peter W Norman, Steve Whittle, and T Eshan Rajabally Services integration by models annotation and transformation .......... 77 Olivier Nano and Mireille Blay-Fornarino 1 A Metamodel of Prototypical Instances .............................. 93 Andy Evans, Girish Maskeri, Alan Moore Paul Sammut and James S. Willans Metamodelling of Transaction Configurations ......................... 106 StenLoecherandHeinrichHussmann Invitedtalk:MarketingtheMDAToolChain......................... 109 Stephen
    [Show full text]
  • Using Model Driven Engineering to Reliably Automate the Measurement of Object-Oriented Software
    Using Model Driven Engineering to Reliably Automate the Measurement of Object-Oriented Software Jacqueline A. McQuillan B.Sc. (Hons) Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Computer Science, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland. Supervisor: Dr. James F. Power March, 2011 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background . 1 1.2 Motivation . 2 1.3 Goals and Approach . 4 1.4 Thesis Overview . 5 2 Background and Related Work 7 2.1 Software Metrics . 7 2.1.1 Chidamber and Kemerer Metrics . 9 2.1.2 Coupling Metrics . 11 2.1.3 Cohesion Metrics . 13 2.1.4 The Elusive Goal of Precise Metric Definitions . 15 2.2 Model Driven Engineering . 16 2.2.1 Models and Metamodels . 17 2.2.2 Model Transformations . 18 2.2.3 Metamodelling Architectures . 19 2.2.4 Eclipse Modelling Framework . 23 2.3 Metamodelling and Software Metrics . 24 2.4 Software Testing in Model Driven Engineering . 28 2.4.1 Test Case Generation . 29 2.4.2 Test Adequacy Criteria . 30 2.4.3 Test Oracle Construction . 33 2.5 Summary . 33 i Contents 3 Towards an MDE Approach to Software Measurement 35 3.1 Introduction . 35 3.2 Defining Metrics at the Meta-Level . 37 3.3 dMML: Tool Support for Defining Metrics at the Meta-Level . 40 3.3.1 Overview of dMML . 43 3.4 Using the Approach to Define and Calculate Software Metrics . 45 3.4.1 An Illustration using the UML . 46 3.4.2 An Illustration using Java .
    [Show full text]
  • Metamodeling for Business Model Design
    Metamodeling for Business Model Design Facilitating development and communication of Business Model Canvas (BMC) models with an OMG standards-based metamodel. Hilmar Hauksson Department of Computer and Systems Sciences Degree project 30 HE credits Degree subject: Computer and Systems Sciences Degree project at the master level Autumn term 2013 Supervisor: Paul Johannesson Reviewer: Harko Verhagen This page intentionally left blank. Metamodeling for Business Model Design Facilitating development and communication of Business Model Canvas (BMC) models with an OMG standards-based metamodel. Hilmar Hauksson Abstract Interest for business models and business modeling has increased rapidly since the mid-1990‘s and there are numerous approaches used to create business models. The business model concept has many definitions which can lead to confusion and slower progress in the research and development of business models. A business model ontology (BMO) was created in 2004 where the business model concept was conceptualized based on an analysis of existing literature. A few years later the Business Model Canvas (BMC) was published; a popular business modeling approach providing a high-level, semi-formal approach to create and communicate business models. While this approach is easy to use, the informality and high-level approach can cause ambiguity and it has limited computer-aided support available. In order to propose a solution to address this problem and facilitate the development and communication of Business Model Canvas models, two artifacts are created, demonstrated and evaluated; a structured metamodel for the Business Model Canvas and its implementation in an OMG standards-based modeling tool to provide tool support for BMC modeling.
    [Show full text]
  • Visual Models Transformation in Metalanguage System Alexander O
    Advances in Information Science and Applications - Volume II Visual Models Transformation in MetaLanguage System Alexander O. Sukhov, Lyudmila N. Lyadova (DSMLs, DSLs), intended to solve a particular class of Abstract — At the process of creation and maintenance of problems in the specific domain. Unlike general purpose information systems the model-based approach to the software modeling languages, DSMLs are more expressive, simple in development is increasingly used. This approach allows to move the applying and easy to understand for different categories of focus from writing of the program code with using general purpose users as they operate with domain terms. To support the language to the models development with automatic generation of data structures and source code of applications. However at usage of process of development and maintenance of DSMLs the this approach it is necessary to transform models constructed by special type of software – language workbench (DSM- various categories of users at different stages of system creation with platform) – is used. usage of various modeling languages. An approach to models The various categories of specialists (programmers, system transformation in DSM platform MetaLanguage is considered. This analysts, database designers, domain experts, business approach allows fulfilling vertical and horizontal transformations of analysts, etc.) are involved in the process of information the designed models. The Metalanguage system support “model-text” and “model-model” types of transformations. The component of systems creation and maintenance. Often they need transformations is based on graph grammars described by production modification of modeling language description to customize rules. Transformations of model in Entity-Relationship notation are and adapt DSML to new conditions, requests of business and presented as example.
    [Show full text]
  • Specification of Model Transformation and Weaving in Model Driven Engineering
    Dipartimento di Informatica Universit`adi L’Aquila Via Vetoio, I-67100 L’Aquila, Italy http://www.di.univaq.it PH.D. THESIS IN COMPUTER SCIENCE XIX SPECIFICATION OF MODEL TRANSFORMATION AND WEAVING IN MODEL DRIVEN ENGINEERING Ph.D. Thesis of: Davide Di Ruscio Advisor: Prof. Alfonso Pierantonio Supervisor of the Ph.D. Program: Prof. Michele Flammini CICLO XIX c Davide Di Ruscio, 2007. All rights reserved ABSTRACT Last years witnessed an increasing intricacy of both software systems and technologies. A num- ber of platforms (e.g. CORBA, J2EE, .NET) have been introduced which often came in bundle with their own programming language (e.g. C++, Java, C#). This has made the software develop- ment process a difficult and expensive task. Model driven engineering (MDE) aims at preserving the investments in building complex software systems against constantly changing technology solutions, by advocating the raising of the abstraction level in system specification and increas- ing automation in system development. The concept of model driven engineering emerged as a generalization of Model Driven Architecture (MDA) proposed by the Object Management Group (OMG) in 2001 [95]. The MDA based software development starts by building a Platform In- dependent Model (PIM) of that system which is refined and transformed to one or more Plat- form Specific Models (PSMs). Then, the PSMs are transformed to code. In this scenario, model transformation plays a central role. Many languages and tools have been proposed to specify and execute transformation programs. In 2002 the Object Management Group (OMG) issued the Query/View/Transformation (QVT) request for proposal [93] to define a standard transformation language, whereas in the meanwhile, a number of model transformation approaches have been proposed both from academia and industry.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Interoperability of Model-To-Model Transformation Languages
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Science of Computer Programming 68 (2007) 114–137 www.elsevier.com/locate/scico On the interoperability of model-to-model transformation languages Fred´ eric´ Jouaulta,b,∗, Ivan Kurtevc a ATLAS Group, INRIA and LINA, University of Nantes, France b Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham AL 35294-1170, United States c Software Engineering Group, University of Twente, The Netherlands Received 2 August 2006; received in revised form 6 May 2007; accepted 14 May 2007 Available online 13 July 2007 Abstract Transforming models is a crucial activity in Model Driven Engineering (MDE). With the adoption of the OMG QVT standard for model transformation languages, it is anticipated that the experience in applying model transformations in various domains will increase. However, the QVT standard is just one possible approach for solving model transformation problems. In parallel with the QVT activity, many research groups and companies have been working on their own model transformation approaches and languages. It is important for software developers to be able to compare and select the most suitable languages and tools for a particular problem. This paper compares several model-to-model transformation languages as a step in the direction of gathering knowledge about the existing model transformation approaches. The focus is on the major language components (sublanguages and their features, execution tools, etc.) and how they are related. The major goal is to motivate the need for language interoperability and to explore options and obstacles for such interoperability.
    [Show full text]
  • Model Transformation By-Example
    Ph.D. Thesis Model Transformation By-Example MTBE Conducted for the purpose of receiving the academic title ’Doktor der Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften’ Advisors o.Univ.-Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Mag. Dr. Gerti Kappel Institute of Software Technology and Interactive Systems Vienna University of Technology Ao.Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Christian Huemer Institute of Software Technology and Interactive Systems Vienna University of Technology Submitted at the Vienna University of Technology Faculty of Informatics by Michael Strommer 0025232 Schliemanngasse 9/6 A-1210 Vienna Vienna, May 2008 Danksagung Diese Arbeit wäre ohne die Unterstützung und Hilfe von KollegInnen, BetreuerInnen, Fre- undInnen und Familie nicht möglich gewesen. Mein besonderer Dank gilt meinen beiden BetreuerInnen Gerti Kappel und Christian Huemer die mich bei der Wahl des Themas und der Durchführung der Dissertation unterstützt haben. Meinen Kollegen Manuel Wimmer und Horst Kargl möchte ich für die zahlreichen Diskussionen danken, die immer wieder spannende Ergebnisse geliefert haben. Manuel Wimmer möchte ich besonders für die Idee zu dem Thema dieser Dissertation danken. Meinen beiden Diplomanden Abraham und Gerald Müller gilt mein Dank für ihre Un- terstützung bei der Implementierung eines Prototyps. Natürlich möchte ich mich auch ganz besonders bei meinen Eltern Eva und Norbert Strommer sowie meinen Freunden bedanken die immer ein offenes Ohr für meine Anliegen und Probleme hatten. Und zuletzt möchte ich noch meinem Freund Jürgen Falb für seine Geduld und Hilfsbereitschaft in den letzten Jahren danken. i ii Abstract Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) is getting more and more attention as a viable alternative to the traditional code-centric software development paradigm. With its progress, several model transformation approaches and languages have been developed in the past years.
    [Show full text]
  • Feature-Based Survey of Model Transformation Approaches
    Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches & Model transformations are touted to play a key role in Model Driven Developmente. Although well-established standards for creating metamodels such as the Meta-Object Facility exist, there is currently no mature foundation for specifying transformations K. Czarnecki among models. We propose a framework for the classification of several existing and S. Helsen proposed model transformation approaches. The classification framework is given as a feature model that makes explicit the different design choices for model transforma- tions. Based on our analysis of model transformation approaches, we propose a few major categories in which most approaches fit. 9,10 INTRODUCTION Creating query-based views of a system Model-driven software development is centered on Model evolution tasks such as model refactor- 1 11,12 the use of models. Models are system abstractions ing that allow developers and other stakeholders to Reverse engineering of higher-level models from 13 effectively address concerns, such as answering a lower-level models or code. question about the system or effecting a change. Examples of model-driven approaches are Model Considerable interest in model transformations has 2,3 Driven Architecture** (MDA**), Model-Inte- been generated by the standardization effort of the 4 5 Object Management Group, Inc. (OMG**). In April grated Computing (MIC), and Software Factories. 2002, the OMG issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) Software Factories, with their focus on automating 14 on Query/Views/Transformations (QVT), which product development in a product-line context, can led to the release of the final adopted QVT also be viewed as an instance of generative software 15 6 specification in November 2005.
    [Show full text]