DOCSLIB.ORG

Metamodelling for MDA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 J. Mellor Mappings A Pattern based model driven approach to model transformations ....... 110 Biju Appukuttan, Tony Clark, Sreedhar Reddy, Laurence Tratt, R. Venkatesh A concrete UML-based graphical transformation syntax : The UML to RDBMSexampleinUMLX..................................... 129 Edward D. Willink MetamodelingRelations-Relatingmetamodels....................... 147 Jan Hendrik Hausmann TowardsModelTransformationwithTXL............................ 162 Richard Paige and Alek Radjenovic A review of OMG MOF 2.0 Query / Views / Transformations Submissions and Recommendations towards the final Standard ...... 178 Tracy Gardner, Catherine Griffin, Jana Koehler and Rainer Hauser Invited talk: Exectutable Meta-Modelling - How to turn MOF into a Programming Language ......................................... 198 Tony Clark 2 Tools Eclipse as a Platform for Metamodelling Tools ........................ 199 Catherine Griffin Tooling Metamodels with Patterns and OCL ......................... 203 D. H. Akehurst and O. Patrascoiu 3 Preface The OMG Model Driven Architecture (MDA) promises to be a revolutionary step in software engineering by making models primary artefacts. This raises the level of abstraction in the software development process, and thus helps manage the complexity and change inherent in today’s systems. Whilst a lot of focus has been given to the transformation of platform-independent models to platform-specific models, the scope of MDA potentially covers the modelling of all aspects of a system throughout its lifecycle. Metamodelling provides the foundation for this vision, by enabling meaningful metamodels of languages to be defined precisely and unified in a consistent framework. To this end, the OMG’s Meta-Object Facility (MOF) is stipulated as the language in which all languages for MDA are expressed. As another iteration of the UML revision process nears completion however, many issues have been raised concerning the means by which MOF is applied, such that languages constructed to support MDA are reusable, flexible and meaningful. This workshop then aims to inves- tigate the fundamental principles, tools and techniques that are needed for the metamodelling of languages, in order to provide a foundation for MDA and the long-term future for the role of modelling in software development. 1 Models and Mappings Fundamentally MDA concerns a wide variety of models and mappings between those models, allowing integration and transformation of those models. Whilst there are many kinds of mapping, they can be fit broadly into three main cate- gories: – refinement or vertical mappings, which relate system models at different levels of abstraction, such as PIM to PSM mappings and reverse engineering mappings; – horizontal mappings, which relate or integrate models covering different as- pects or domains within a system, but at the same level of abstraction; – variant mappings, which relate models of different members of a product family, or different stages of the evolution of a system. These categories of mapping can be thought of as the dimensions in a three dimensional modeling space, as depicted in Figure 1. 2 Languages and Metamodelling Models are defined using modelling languages, and if those languages are to be used for anything more sophisticated than drawing pictures, their syntax and semantics must both be precisely defined. Whilst formal languages such 4 Variants Abstraction / refinement Aspects Fig. 1. Dimensions in The Modeling Space. as Z can be used to realise such language definitions, their syntax are often obtuse and inaccessible, making them unpopular with industry. An alternative approach is metamodelling, where language definitions are themselves modelled, constructed in a language that resembles the languages used to construct system models. In this way, metamodelling not only enables language definitions easier to understand (since they are written in a familiar notation), but potentially they can be manipulated and integrated in the same way as system models (since they are all models). The latter of course depends entirely on the modelling tools that are available, but the potential is nevertheless there. In MDA, models can be constructed in whatever modelling language the user chooses, but in order for models from one language to be integrated with or trans- formed into models from another language, those languages must themselves be integrated. This is achieved by: 1. defining the modelling languages using the same metamodelling language; 2. providing a mapping that semantically integrates the two languages. In MDA, all modelling languages are ultimately defined in the OMG standard metamodelling language, called the Meta-Object Facility (MOF). Another OMG standard in the pipeline is the Query/View/Transformations (QVT) language, which will be the language designated for describing all language mappings. MOF and QVT provide the unifying foundation for MDA, since they facilitate the key metamodelling activities of metamodel construction and metamodel integration. Providing standardised metamodelling and mapping languages is only part of the challenge however. Metamodels of real languages are complex artefacts just like models of today’s enterprise systems, and must be similarly well thought out and architected. Thus there is also the need for strong metamodelling principles, 5 processes and methodologies. As another iteration of the UML revision process nears completion, it is clear that this is an area which is currently poorly under- stood, as many issues have been raised concerning the means by which MOF is applied, such that languages constructed to support MDA are reusable, flexible and meaningful. 3 Standards and Tools Standards such as MOF and QVT described above, are crucial for MDA to work, since they distil common understanding and best practice, and provide conformance points for tools, that in turn enable tool interoperability. Other important MDA related standards are the Unified Modelling Language (UML), and the XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) format. As important as, if not more so than, standards are tools. Without the avail- ability of tools to carry out the appropriate applications, MDA simply cannot work. There is a vast range of modelling tools on the market, that have been particularly popular since the advent of UML. However most of these tools are tied to one or a few languages that are hard coded in the tool. MDA will require more flexible ‘metatools’, that can be adapted to support a much wider range of languages. Metamodelling makes this feasible, since a metatool can import language definitions defined in MOF and integrate them using QVT mappings. It is unlikely that there will be one tool that will carry out every envisagable MDA application. Rather there will probably be tools for constructing and inte- grating metamodels, tools for system modelling, tools for model and metamodel analysis, model compilers and interpreters, model transformation tools, tools for running model simulations, and so on. XMI is the XML based serialisation for- mat that will allow these tools to work seamlessly together in a unified MDA environment. 4 Aims and Scope of the Workshop The workshop seeks to explore the theories, principles and practice by which language metamodels are constructed, transformed, related and used to support MDA. It also aims to highlight lessons that have been learned from putting these theories and principles into practice, and investigate the next generation of tools that are needed to fully realise the MDA vision. The papers and discus- sions at this workshop reflect the current challenges facing MDA in the area of metamodelling, and touch on many of the issues described above. A key aspect of this workshop is that it aims to bring together the theories, views and experiences of both academia and industry. Solutions coming from industry tend to be focused and practical, yet often lack the generality needed to apply them in a wider arena, due to
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]
  • Capabilities Statement
    Capabilities Statement Email: [email protected] Web site: www.modeldriven.com 1 Model Driven Solutions Model Driven Solutions is a leading provider of professional services and products that leverage Services Oriented Architecture (SOA), the Object Management Group’s (OMG) Model Driven Architecture (MDA), Information Sharing, Ontologies and Semantics and W3C’s Semantic Web techniques and standards to federate processes, information, systems and organizations. A current focus is information interoperability and federation with a current emphasis on finance, risk and threats across cyber and physical domains as well as a model-driven approach to NIEM. We assist major organizations in achieving effectiveness and agility in a changing and collaborative world. Founded in 1996, as Data Access Technologies, Inc., its division, Model Driven Solutions, has been a leader in the development of open standards and supporting products that result in SOA based Executable Enterprise Architectures (EEA). Model Driven Solutions’ EEA focus helps drive information systems to quickly and cost effectively address business and defense initiatives. Active in the Object Management Group (OMG), the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Open Group and other standards development organizations, Model Driven Solutions has provided industry leadership that is, today, resulting in significant technological advancements and customer satisfaction. With customers like the General Services Administration (GSA), the U.S. Information Sharing Environment, the US Army, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Kaiser Permanente, Unisys and many others, Model Driven Solutions is at the leading edge of today’s software technology advances. General Information Parent Company Name: Data Access Technologies, Inc. (DAT) Virginia Affiliate: Model Driven Solutions, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • PML, an Object Oriented Process Modelling Language
    PML, an Object Oriented Process Modeling Language Prof. Dr.-Ing. Reiner Anderl 1, and Dipl.-Ing. Jochen Raßler 2 1 Prof. Dr.-Ing. Reiner Anderl, Germany, [email protected] 2 Dipl.-Ing. Jochen Raßler, Germany, [email protected] Abstract: Processes are very important for the success within many business fields. They define the proper application of methods, technologies, tools and company structures in order to reach business goals. Important processes to be defined are manufacturing processes or product development processes for example to guarantee the company’s success. Over the last decades many process modeling languages have been developed to cover the needs of process modeling. Those modeling languages have several limitations, mainly they are still procedural and didn’t follow the paradigm change to object oriented modeling and thus often lead to process models, which are difficult to maintain. In previous papers we have introduced PML, Process Modeling Language, and shown it’s usage in process modeling. PML is derived from UML and hence fully object oriented and uses modern modeling techniques. It is based on process class diagrams that describe methods and resources for process modeling. In this paper the modeling language is described in more detail and new language elements will be introduced to develop the language to a generic usable process modeling language. Keywords: process modeling language, PML, UML 1. Introduction As the tendency of enterprises to collaborate growths steadily, industry faces new challenges managing business processes, product development processes, manufacturing processes and much more. Furthermore, discipline spanning product development processes are increasing, e.
    [Show full text]
  • Unifying Modeling and Programming with ALF
    SOFTENG 2016 : The Second International Conference on Advances and Trends in Software Engineering Unifying Modeling and Programming with ALF Thomas Buchmann and Alexander Rimer University of Bayreuth Chair of Applied Computer Science I Bayreuth, Germany email: fthomas.buchmann, [email protected] Abstract—Model-driven software engineering has become more The Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) [5] has been and more popular during the last decade. While modeling the established as an extensible platform for the development of static structure of a software system is almost state-of-the art MDSE applications. It is based on the Ecore meta-model, nowadays, programming is still required to supply behavior, i.e., which is compatible with the Object Management Group method bodies. Unified Modeling Language (UML) class dia- (OMG) Meta Object Facility (MOF) specification [6]. Ideally, grams constitute the standard in structural modeling. Behavioral software engineers operate only on the level of models such modeling, on the other hand, may be achieved graphically with a set of UML diagrams or with textual languages. Unfortunately, that there is no need to inspect or edit the actual source code, not all UML diagrams come with a precisely defined execution which is generated from the models automatically. However, semantics and thus, code generation is hindered. In this paper, an practical experiences have shown that language-specific adap- implementation of the Action Language for Foundational UML tations to the generated source code are frequently necessary. (Alf) standard is presented, which allows for textual modeling In EMF, for instance, only structure is modeled by means of of software systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Sysml Distilled: a Brief Guide to the Systems Modeling Language
    ptg11539604 Praise for SysML Distilled “In keeping with the outstanding tradition of Addison-Wesley’s techni- cal publications, Lenny Delligatti’s SysML Distilled does not disappoint. Lenny has done a masterful job of capturing the spirit of OMG SysML as a practical, standards-based modeling language to help systems engi- neers address growing system complexity. This book is loaded with matter-of-fact insights, starting with basic MBSE concepts to distin- guishing the subtle differences between use cases and scenarios to illu- mination on namespaces and SysML packages, and even speaks to some of the more esoteric SysML semantics such as token flows.” — Jeff Estefan, Principal Engineer, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory “The power of a modeling language, such as SysML, is that it facilitates communication not only within systems engineering but across disci- plines and across the development life cycle. Many languages have the ptg11539604 potential to increase communication, but without an effective guide, they can fall short of that objective. In SysML Distilled, Lenny Delligatti combines just the right amount of technology with a common-sense approach to utilizing SysML toward achieving that communication. Having worked in systems and software engineering across many do- mains for the last 30 years, and having taught computer languages, UML, and SysML to many organizations and within the college setting, I find Lenny’s book an invaluable resource. He presents the concepts clearly and provides useful and pragmatic examples to get you off the ground quickly and enables you to be an effective modeler.” — Thomas W. Fargnoli, Lead Member of the Engineering Staff, Lockheed Martin “This book provides an excellent introduction to SysML.
    [Show full text]
  • The Convergence of Modeling and Programming
    The Convergence of Modeling and Programming: Facilitating the Representation of Attributes and Associations in the Umple Model-Oriented Programming Language by Andrew Forward PhD Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy (Computer Science1) Ottawa-Carleton Institute for Computer Science School of Information Technology and Engineering University of Ottawa Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5 Canada © Andrew Forward, 2010 1 The Ph.D. program in Computer Science is a joint program with Carleton University, administered by the Ottawa Carleton Institute for Computer Science Acknowledgements A very special, and well-deserved, thank you to the following: a) Dr. Timothy C. Lethbridge. Tim has been a mentor of mine for several years, first as one of my undergraduate professors, later as my Master’s supervisor. Tim has again helped to shape my approach to software engineering, research and academics during my journey as a PhD candidate. b) The Complexity Reduction in Software Engineering (CRUISE) group and in particular Omar Badreddin and Julie Filion. Our weekly meetings, work with IBM, and the collaboration with the development of Umple were of great help. c) My family and friends. Thank you and much love Ayana; your support during this endeavor was much appreciated despite the occasional teasing about me still being in school. To my mom (and editor) Jayne, my dad Bill, my sister Allison and her husband Dennis. And, to my friends Neil, Roy, Van, Rob, Pat, and Ernesto – your help will be forever recorded in my work. Finally a special note to Ryan Lowe, a fellow Software Engineer that helped to keep my work grounded during our lengthy discussion about software development – I will miss you greatly.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize
    Using DOORS & Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes Bob Sherman - [email protected] [email protected] Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes - v1.0 © 2005 Galactic Solutions Group LLC – Authors: Bob Sherman ([email protected]), [email protected] 1 © Telelogic AB Agenda • The Unmet Need • The Solution – Strategy: Business Driven Application Lifecycle – Tactics: Business Modeling via DOORS & VISIO – Tactics: DOORS/VISIO Integration • Case Study Results Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes - v1.0 © 2005 Galactic Solutions Group LLC – Authors: Bob Sherman ([email protected]), [email protected] 2 © Telelogic AB Chronic IT Project Problems Top IT Project Problems • User/Stakeholder Engagement Outages • Unclear Objectives • Incomplete or Changing Requirements *Standish Group Chaos Studies Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes - v1.0 © 2005 Galactic Solutions Group LLC – Authors: Bob Sherman ([email protected]), [email protected] 3 © Telelogic AB Chronic IT Project Problems Rework • 35-65% of project budget *Standish Group spent on rework. • ~50% of rework is due to requirements errors * IEEE & University of Southern California Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes - v1.0 © 2005 Galactic Solutions Group LLC – Authors:
    [Show full text]
  • Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes
    Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes “The Business Driven Application Lifecycle” Bob Sherman Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals [email protected] Michael Sutherland Galactic Solutions Group, LLC [email protected] Prepared for the Telelogic 2005 User Group Conference, Americas & Asia/Pacific http://www.telelogic.com/news/usergroup/us2005/index.cfm 24 October 2005 Abstract: The fact that most Information Technology (IT) projects fail as a result of requirements management problems is common knowledge. What is not commonly recognized is that the widely haled “use case” and Object Oriented Analysis and Design (OOAD) phenomenon have resulted in little (if any) abatement of IT project failures. In fact, ten years after the advent of these methods, every major IT industry research group remains aligned on the fact that these projects are still failing at an alarming rate (less than a 30% success rate). Ironically, the popularity of use case and OOAD (e.g. UML) methods may be doing more harm than good by diverting our attention away from addressing the real root cause of IT project failures (when you have a new hammer, everything looks like a nail). This paper asserts that, the real root cause of IT project failures centers around the failure to map requirements to an accurate, precise, comprehensive, optimized business model. This argument will be supported by a using a brief recap of the history of use case and OOAD methods to identify differences between the problems these methods were intended to address and the challenges of today’s IT projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Executable UML: a Foundation for Model Driven Architecture
    01-Introduction.fm Page 1 Wednesday, April 17, 2002 4:33 PM 1 Introduction Organizations want systems. They don’t want processes, meetings, mod- els, documents, or even code.1 They want systems that work—as quickly as possible, as cheaply as possible, and as easy to change as possible. Organizations don’t want long software development lead-times and high costs; they just want to reduce systems development hassles to the abso- lute minimum. But systems development is a complicated business. It demands distilla- tion of overlapping and contradictory requirements; invention of good abstractions from those requirements; fabrication of an efficient, cost- effective implementation; and clever solutions to isolated coding and abstraction problems. And we need to manage all this work to a successful conclusion, all at the lowest possible cost in time and money. None of this is new. Over thirty years ago, the U.S. Department of Defense warned of a “software crisis” and predicted that to meet the burgeoning need for software by the end of the century, everyone in the country would have to become a programmer. In many ways this prediction has come true, as anyone who has checked on the progress of a flight or made a stock trade using the Internet can tell you. Nowadays, we all write our own 1 Robert Block began his book The Politics of Projects[1] in a similar manner. 1 01-Introduction.fm Page 2 Wednesday, April 17, 2002 4:33 PM 2 INTRODUCTION programs by filling in forms—at the level of abstraction of the application, not the software.
    [Show full text]
  • Executing UML Models
    Executing UML Models Miguel Pinto Luz1, Alberto Rodrigues da Silva1 1Instituto Superior Técnico Av. Rovisco Pais 1049-001 Lisboa – Portugal {miguelluz, alberto.silva}@acm.org Abstract. Software development evolution is a history of permanent seeks for raising the abstraction level to new limits overcoming new frontiers. Executable UML (xUML) comes this way as the expectation to achieve the next level in abstraction, offering the capability of deploying a xUML model in a variety of software environments and platforms without any changes. This paper comes as a first expedition inside xUML, exploring the main aspects of its specification including the action languages support and the fundamental MDA compliance. In this paper is presented a future new xUML tool called XIS-xModels that gives Microsoft Visio new capabilities of running and debugging xUML models. This paper is an outline of the capabilities and main features of the future application. Keywords: UML, executable UML, Model Debugging, Action Language. 1. Introduction In a dictionary we find that an engineer is a person who uses scientific knowledge to solve practical problems, planning and directing, but an information technology engineer is someone that spends is time on implementing lines of code, instead of being focus on planning and projecting. Processes, meetings, models, documents, or even code are superfluous artifacts for organizations: all they need is well design and fast implemented working system, that moves them towards a new software development paradigm, based on high level executable models. According this new paradigm it should be possible to reduce development time and costs, and to bring new product quality warranties, only reachable by executing, debugging and testing early design stages (models).
    [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]
  • Extending and Evaluating the Model-Based Product Definition
    NIST GCR 18-015 Extending and Evaluating the Model-based Product Definition Nathan W. Hartman Jesse Zahner Purdue University This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.18-015 NIST GCR 18-015 Extending and Evaluating the Model-based Product Definition Prepared for Thomas D. Hedberg, Jr. Allison Barnard Feeney U.S. Department of Commerce Engineering Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8260 By Nathan W. Hartman Jesse Zahner PLM Center of Excellence Purdue University This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.18-015 December 2017 U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Walter Copan, NIST Director and Undersecretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology Disclaimer Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Additionally, neither NIST nor any of its employees make any warranty, expressed or implied, nor assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product, or process included in this publication. The report was prepared under cooperative agreement 70NANB15H311 between the National Institute of Standards and Technology and Purdue University. The statements and conclusions contained in this report are those of the authors and do not imply recommendations or endorsements by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Certain commercial systems are identified in this report. Such identification does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
    [Show full text]