DOCSLIB.ORG

Domain Specific Language Tool Development

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Domain Specific Language Tool Development University of Latvia ELĪNA KALNIŅA MODEL TRANSFORMATION DEVELOPMENT USING MOLA MAPPINGS AND TEMPLATE MOLA Thesis for the PhD Degree at the University of Latvia Field: Computer Science Section: Programming Languages and Systems Scientific Advisor: Prof., Dr. Habil. Sc. Comp. AUDRIS KALNINS Riga – 2011 This work has been supported by the European Social Fund within the project «Support for Doctoral Studies at University of Latvia». Scientific Advisor: Professor, Dr. Sc. Comp. Audris Kalniņš Latvijas Universitāte Referees: Professor, Dr. Sc. Comp. Guntis Bārzdiņš University of Latvia Professor, Dr. Sc. Ing. Oksana Ņikiforova Riga Technical University Professor, Dr. Olegas Vasilecas Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (Vilnius, Lithuania) The defence of the thesis will take place in an open session of the Council of Promotion in Computer Science of the University of Latvia, in the Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science of the University of Latvia (Room 413, Raina Boulevard 29, Riga, Latvia) on March 7, 2012 at 4 PM. The thesis and its summary are available at the library of the University of Latvia (Kalpaka Boulevard 4, Riga, Latvia). 3 4 ABSTRACT Model transformation development for three specific domains: Model-Driven Software Development (MDSD), DSL tool development and transformation synthesis has been studied in the thesis. It is concluded that transformation development in domain- specific transformation languages is more straightforward and faster compared to traditional transformation languages. A domain-specific model transformation language has been developed for each studied domain. Two of them are based on mappings. In both cases it was concluded that mappings better fit for typical tasks and transformations better fit for non-standard tasks. Therefore a close integration between mappings and transformations is required. The research results have been published in 15 papers (6 of them have been included in SCOPUS). Keywords Model transformations, Domain-Specific Languages (DSL), Model-Driven Software Development (MDSD), DSL tool development, Higher-Order Transformations (HOT) 5 6 CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ 11 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... 15 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................. 17 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 1 MOTIVATION - MDSD AND MODEL TRANSFORMATION LANGUAGES ..................................................................................................... 27 1.1 Modelling ................................................................................................................ 27 1.1.1 What is a Model? ........................................................................................... 27 1.1.2 Meta-modelling ............................................................................................. 32 1.2 Model-Driven Software Development .................................................................... 34 1.2.1 MD* .............................................................................................................. 34 1.2.2 Model Driven Architecture ........................................................................... 36 1.2.3 Model Driven Software Development .......................................................... 39 1.2.4 Domain-Specific Modelling Languages ........................................................ 40 1.3 Model Transformations ........................................................................................... 42 1.3.1 Model Transformation Languages ................................................................ 43 1.3.2 Mapping Languages ...................................................................................... 45 1.3.3 Higher-Order Transformations ...................................................................... 45 CHAPTER 2 MOLA LANGUAGE .............................................................................. 47 2.1 MOLA Overview .................................................................................................... 47 2.2 MOLA Elements ..................................................................................................... 48 2.3 MOLA Example ...................................................................................................... 53 2.4 Hello World with MOLA ........................................................................................ 55 2.4.1 Greeting Tasks ............................................................................................... 56 2.4.2 Instance Counting .......................................................................................... 57 2.4.3 Reversion ....................................................................................................... 63 2.4.4 Model Migration ........................................................................................... 64 2.4.5 Deletion Tasks ............................................................................................... 66 2.4.6 MOLA Tool Support ..................................................................................... 67 2.5 MOLA Metamodel .................................................................................................. 69 CHAPTER 3 TRANSFORMATIONS FOR MODEL-DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT IN REDSEEDS .................................................................................................... 73 3.1 ReDSeeDS Overview .............................................................................................. 73 3.2 Requirements Specification in ReDSeeDS ............................................................. 75 3.2.1 Requirements Specification Language in ReDSeeDS .................................. 75 3.2.2 Example of Requirements ............................................................................. 77 3.3 Model-Driven Development in the ReDSeeDS Project .......................................... 78 3.3.1 Design Patterns and the Architecture Style ................................................... 79 3.3.2 The RSL Profile ............................................................................................ 81 7 3.4 ReDSeeDS Basic Style ............................................................................................ 81 3.4.1 The Platform-Independent Model ................................................................. 82 3.4.2 The Platform-Specific Model ........................................................................ 85 3.5 The Keyword-Based Style ...................................................................................... 85 3.5.1 Models ........................................................................................................... 86 3.5.2 Selected Design Patterns for the Keyword-Based Style ............................... 88 3.5.3 RSL Profile for the Keyword-Based Style .................................................... 89 3.5.4 The Structure of the Analysis Model ............................................................ 91 3.5.5 Transformation of Requirements to Analysis ............................................... 92 3.5.6 The Platform-Independent Model ................................................................. 93 3.5.7 Transformation of Requirements and Analysis to PIM ................................ 95 3.5.8 The Platform-Specific Model ........................................................................ 98 3.5.9 The Java Code ............................................................................................... 99 3.6 Implementation ...................................................................................................... 103 3.6.1 Model-to-Model Transformations Implementation .................................... 103 3.6.2 Model-to-Model Transformations in the Keyword-Based Style................. 105 3.6.3 Model-to-Code Transformation Implementation ........................................ 111 3.6.4 Integration with the Enterprise Architect .................................................... 112 3.7 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 113 CHAPTER 4 MAPPING LANGUAGES.................................................................... 115 4.1 Mapping Idea ......................................................................................................... 115 4.1.1 Transformation Languages and Mapping Languages ................................. 116 4.1.2 General Purpose Mapping Languages......................................................... 118 4.2 Domain-Specific Mapping Languages .................................................................. 120 4.2.1 Domain-Specific Model Transformations ................................................... 120 4.2.2 Domain-Specific Mapping Languages ........................................................ 121 4.3 MALA4MDSD – Mapping Language for MDSD ................................................ 121 4.3.1 MALA4MDSD Motivation ......................................................................... 122 4.3.2 Basics of MALA4MDSD ............................................................................ 124 4.3.3 MALA4MDSD
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]
  • Lessons Learned from Building Model-Driven Development Tools
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Lessons Learned from Building Model-Driven Development Tools Richard F. Paige1 and D´anielVarr´o2 Department of Computer Science, University of York, UK. e-mail: [email protected] Department of Measurement and Information Systems Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary. e-mail: [email protected] The date of receipt and acceptance will be inserted by the editor Abstract Tools to support modelling in system and of MDD tools. The principles will be distilled from an software engineering are widespread, and have reached analysis of the development of two MDD tools that are a degree of maturity where their use and availability used in practice: VIATRA and Epsilon. These tools are are accepted. Tools to support Model-Driven Develop- used in industry, on real projects, and have developed ment (MDD) { where models are manipulated and man- in very different ways. Arguably, some of the lessons aged throughout the system/software engineering lifecy- learned from the development of these tools can inform cle { have, over the last ten years, seen much research the development of new MDD tools, and can also be and development attention. Over the last ten years, we used to support the evolution of existing tools. Our ob- have had significant experience in the design, develop- jective is not to propose the \ideal" MDD tool; such a ment and deployment of MDD tools in practical settings. tool is unlikely to exist. However, the principles under- In this paper, we distill some of the important lessons pinning the development of MDD tools that are widely we have learned in developing and deploying two MDD used in practice can help in assessing existing tools, and tools: Epsilon and VIATRA.
    [Show full text]
  • Model-Driven Engineering, the System Under Development Is Described and Analyzed Using Models
    X perf =1.00 X loss =0.01 SDSoftware Design and Quality A Declarative Language for Bidirectional Model Consistency Master’s Thesis of Dominik Werle at the Department of Informatics Institute for Program Structures and Data Organization (IPD) Reviewer: Prof. Dr. Ralf H. Reussner Second reviewer: Jun.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Anne Koziolek Advisor: Dipl.-Inform. Max E. Kramer Second advisor: M.Sc. Michael Langhammer 09. October 2015 – 08. April 2016 Karlsruher Institut für Technologie Fakultät für Informatik Postfach 6980 76128 Karlsruhe I declare that I have developed and written the enclosed thesis completely by myself, and have not used sources or means without declaration in the text. Karlsruhe, 08. April 2016 .................................... (Dominik Werle) Abstract In model-driven engineering, the system under development is described and analyzed using models. Dierent models provide dierent abstractions of the system for dierent purposes. If multiple modeling languages are used, their models can contain overlapping informa- tion about the system. Then, they can become inconsistent after changes and need to be synchronized. The complexity of synchronizing models can be reduced by specifying consistency relationships in specialized languages and by automating the synchronization based on this specication. The languages can hide complexity that is not specic to the domain of the modeling languages, for example by deriving the operations needed for propagating changes from a model to another model for all pairs of models instead of requiring explicit specication for each pair and direction. In the course of this thesis, we designed the mapping language for specifying these consistency relationships and implemented a framework that maintains consistency based on the specication.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Report
    RZ 3621 (# 99631) 07/18/2005 Computer Science 10 pages Research Report A Systematic Approach to Designing Model Transformations Jochen M. Kuster,¨ Ksenia Ryndina and Rainer Hauser IBM Research GmbH Zurich Research Laboratory 8803 Ruschlikon¨ Switzerland {jku,ryn,rfh}@zurich.ibm.com LIMITED DISTRIBUTION NOTICE This report will be distributed outside of IBM up to one year after the IBM publication date. Some reports are available at http://domino.watson.ibm.com/library/Cyberdig.nsf/home. Research IBM Almaden · Austin · Beijing · Delhi · Haifa · T.J. Watson · Tokyo · Zurich A Systematic Approach to Designing Model Transformations Jochen M. Kuster¨ , Ksenia Ryndina and Rainer Hauser IBM Zurich Research Laboratory 8803 R¨uschlikon Switzerland jku,ryn,rfh ¡ @zurich.ibm.com Abstract forming them into a formal language [9]. Currently, a great deal of research is focused on the expression of model transformation Design and implementation of model transformations is one designs and appropriate tool support for model transformation de- key prerequisite for the vision of model driven development to be- velopers. This has led to the Query/Views/Transformation (QVT) come true. However, model transformations are quite different proposal by the Object Management Group (OMG) [21], which from other software artifacts since a model transformation design aims to provide a standardized framework for model transforma- typically consists of a set of transformation rules instead of object- tion development. oriented models such as class diagrams and statecharts. There- fore traditional software engineering approaches are not directly Many existing model transformation approaches favor that applicable for the development of model transformations. Never- transformations are captured in a rule-based way by a set of trans- theless, in the line of existing software engineering practice, model formation rules (see VIATRA [5], GReAT [13], UMLX [26], transformations must be developed in a systematic way in order to BOTL [4] and work by Milicev [17]).
    [Show full text]
  • Adding Change Impact Analysis to the Formal Verification of C Programs
    Adding Change Impact Analysis to the Formal Verification of C Programs Serge Autexier and Christoph Lüth? Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz (DFKI), Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 5, 28359 Bremen, Germany [email protected], [email protected] Abstract. Handling changes to programs and specifications efficiently is a particular challenge in formal software verification. Change impact analysis is an approach to this challenge where the effects of changes made to a document (such as a program or specification) are described in terms of rules on a semantic representation of the document. This allows to describe and delimit the effects of syntactic changes semantically. This paper presents an application of generic change impact analysis to formal software verification, using the GMoC and SAMS tools. We adapt the GMoC tool for generic change impact analysis to the SAMS verification framework for the formal verification of C programs, and show how a few simple rules are sufficient to capture the essence of change management. 1 Introduction Software verification has come of age, and a lot of viable approaches to verifying the correctness of an implementation with respect to a given specification exist. However, the real challenge in software verification is to cope with changes — real software is never finished, the requirements may change, the implementa- tion may change, or the underlying hardware may change (particularly in the embedded domain, where hardware is a major cost factor). Here, many existing approaches show weaknesses; it is not untypical to handle changes by rerunning the verification and see where it fails (though there exist more sophisticated approaches [1, 5], cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Expressive and Efficient Model Transformation with an Internal DSL
    Expressive and Efficient Model Transformation with an Internal DSL of Xtend Artur Boronat Department of Informatics, University of Leicester, UK [email protected] ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION Model transformation (MT) of very large models (VLMs), with mil- Over the past decade the application of MDE technology in indus- lions of elements, is a challenging cornerstone for applying Model- try has led to the emergence of very large models (VLMs), with Driven Engineering (MDE) technology in industry. Recent research millions of elements, that may need to be updated using model efforts that tackle this problem have been directed at distributing transformation (MT). This situation is characterized by important MT on the Cloud, either directly, by managing clusters explicitly, or challenges [26], starting from model persistence using XMI serial- indirectly, via external NoSQL data stores. In this paper, we draw at- ization with the Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) [31] to scalable tention back to improving efficiency of model transformations that approaches to apply model updates. use EMF natively and that run on non-distributed environments, An important research effort to tackle these challenges was showing that substantial performance gains can still be reaped on performed in the European project MONDO [19] by scaling out that ground. efficient model query and MT engines, such as VIATRA[3] and We present Yet Another Model Transformation Language (YAMTL), ATL/EMFTVM [46], building on Cloud technology either directly, a new internal domain-specific language (DSL) of Xtend for defin- by using distributed clusters of servers explicitly, or indirectly, by ing declarative MT, and its execution engine.
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Validation and Model Generationfor Domain-Specific
    Budapest University of Technology and Economics Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics Department of Measurement and Information Systems Formal Validation and Model Generation for Domain-Specific Languages by Logic Solvers Thesis booklet Oszkár Semeráth Thesis supervisor: Prof. Dániel Varró Budapest, 2019 1. Introduction 1 Introduction 1.1 Domain-specific modeling languages My thesis is motivated by the challenges in the development of complex, safety- critical systems such as automotive, avionics or cyber-physical systems, which is characterized by a long development time and strict safety standards (like DO-178C or DO-330). Model-Based System Engineering (MBSE) is a widely used technique in those application domains [WHR14], which facilitates the use of models in different phases of design and on various levels of abstraction. Fur- thermore, MBSE promotes the use of Domain-Specific (Modeling) Languages (DSLs) to precisely capture the main features of a target domain, thus en- abling the engineers to model their solutions with the concepts of the problem domain. Additionally, advanced modeling environments can automate several development steps, with a particular emphasis on verification and validation (V&V). Thus they can significantly improve the overall productivity of the de- velopment and quality of the product. A complex industrial modeling environment supports the development of models by continuously evaluating consistency constraints to ensure that the models satisfy the design rules of the domain. There is already efficient sup- port for automatically validating constraints and design rules over large model instances of the DSL using tools like Eclipse OCL [Wil12; KPP09] or Viatra [Ber+11; Ber+10]. Modeling environments often incorporate the automated generation of various artifacts such as source code, task specific views, or doc- umentation by using code generation or model transformation techniques.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficient ATL Incremental Transformations
    Journal of Object Technology Published by AITO | Association Internationale pour les Technologies Objets http://www.jot.fm/ Efficient ATL Incremental Transformations Th´eoLe Calvara Fr´ed´ericJouaultb Fabien Chhelb Mickael Clavreulb a. LERIA, University of Angers, France b. ERIS Team, Groupe ESEO, France Abstract Incrementally executing model transformations offers several benefits such as updating target models in-place (instead of creating a new copy), as well as generally propagating changes faster (compared with complete re-execution). Active operations have been shown to of- fer performant OCL-based model transformation incrementality with use- ful properties like fine-grained change propagation, and the preservation of collection ordering. However, active operations have so far only been available as a Java library. This compels users to program at a relatively low level of abstraction, where most technical details are still present. Writing transformations at this level of abstraction is a tedious and error prone work. Using languages like Xtend alleviates some but not all issues. In order to provide active operation users with a more user-friendly front-end, we have worked on compiling ATL code to Java code using the active operations library. Our compiler can handle a significant subset of ATL, and we show that the code it generates provides similar performance to hand-written Java or Xtend code. Furthermore, this compiler also enables new possibilities like defining derived properties by leveraging the ATL refining mode. Keywords Incremental model transformation Active operations ATL. 1 Introduction Incremental model transformation execution offers many advantages over batch (i.e., non-incremental) execution, such as faster change propagation.
    [Show full text]
  • Graph Computation Models
    Annegret Habel Mohamed Mosbah (Eds.) Graph Computation Models Second International Workshop, GCM 2008 Leicester, United Kingdom, September 2008 Proceedings Preface GCM 2008 is the second workshop of a series that serves as a forum for re- searchers that are interested in graph computation models. The scope of the workshop concerns graph computation models on graphical structures of various kinds (like graphs, diagrams, visual sentences and others). A variety of computa- tion models have been developed using graphs and graph transformations. These models include features for programming languages and systems, paradigms for software development, concurrent calculi, local computations and distributed al- gorithms, biological or chemical computations. Graph transformations can be an intermediate representation of a computation. In addition to being visual and intuitive, this representation also allows the use of mathematical methods for analysis and manipulation. The aim of the workshop is to bring together researchers interested in all aspects of computation models based on graphs and graph transformation tech- niques, and their applications. A particular emphasis is made for models and tools describing general solutions. The workshop includes tutorials and invited papers, contributed papers, and system demonstrations. The tutorials and invited papers introduce different types of graph transformations and their use to study computation models. The contributed papers consider specific topics of graph transformation models and their applications. The topics of the papers range from sequential graph transfor- mation, extended graph rewrite rules, efficient pattern matching of the left-hand side of a rule to a host graph, and the termination of a controlled graph transfor- mation system to parallel graph transformations in distributed adaptive design.
    [Show full text]
  • The Train Benchmark: Cross-Technology Performance Evaluation of Continuous Model Queries
    Softw Syst Model DOI 10.1007/s10270-016-0571-8 REGULAR PAPER The Train Benchmark: cross-technology performance evaluation of continuous model queries Gábor Szárnyas1,2,3 · Benedek Izsó1 · István Ráth1,4 · Dániel Varró1,2,3 Received: 30 October 2015 / Revised: 27 March 2016 / Accepted: 3 October 2016 © The Author(s) 2017. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract In model-driven development of safety-critical tion rules is challenging for the currently available tools. systems (like automotive, avionics or railways), well- Checking well-formedness constraints can be captured by formedness of models is repeatedly validated in order to declarative queries over graph models, while model update detect design flaws as early as possible. In many indus- operations can be specified as model transformations. This trial tools, validation rules are still often implemented by paper presents a benchmark for systematically assessing the a large amount of imperative model traversal code which scalability of validating and revalidating well-formedness makes those rule implementations complicated and hard constraints over large graph models. The benchmark defines to maintain. Additionally, as models are rapidly increas- well-formedness validation scenarios in the railway domain: ing in size and complexity, efficient execution of valida- a metamodel, an instance model generator and a set of well- formedness constraints captured by queries, fault injection Communicated by Prof. Lionel Briand. and repair operations (imitating the work of systems engi- neers by model transformations). The benchmark focuses This work was partially supported by the MONDO (EU ICT-611125) project, the MTA-BME Lendület Research Group on Cyber-Physical on the performance of query evaluation, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • The Grgen User Manual
    Universit¨atKarlsruhe (TH) Forschungsuniversit¨at · gegr¨undet1825 Fakult¨atf¨urInformatik Institut f¨urProgrammstrukturen und Datenorganisation Lehrstuhl Prof. Goos The GrGen.NET User Manual Refers to GrGen.NET Release 2.7 milestone 1 |DRAFT| www.grgen.net Jakob Blomer Rubino Geiß Edgar Jakumeit December 5, 2010 ii ABSTRACT GrGen.NET: transformation of structures made easy { with languages for graph modeling, pattern matching, and rewrit- ing, as well as rule control; brought to life by a compiler and a rapid prototyping environment offering graphical and step- wise debugging. The Graph Rewrite Generator is a tool en- abling elegant and convenient development of graph rewriting applications with comparable performance to conventionally developed ones. This user manual contains both, normative statements in the sense of a reference manual as well as an informal guide to the features and usage of GrGen.NET. This manual is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany license. The license is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/ iii iv FOREWORD FOR RELEASE 1.4 First of all a word about the term \graph rewriting". Some would rather say \graph trans- formation"; some even think there is a difference between these two. We don't see such differences and use graph rewriting for consistency. The GrGen project started in spring 2003 with the diploma thesis of Sebastian Hack un- der supervision of Rubino Geiß. At that time we needed a tool to find patterns in graph based intermediate representations used in compiler construction. We imagined a tool that is fast, expressive, and easy to integrate into our compiler infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • Model Transformation by Graph Transformation: a Comparative Study
    Model Transformation by Graph Transformation: A Comparative Study Gabriele Taentzer1, Karsten Ehrig1, Esther Guerra2, Juan de Lara3, Laszlo Lengyel4, Tihamer Levendovszky4, Ulrike Prange1, Daniel Varro4, and Szilvia Varro-Gyapay4 1 Technische Universit¨atBerlin, Germany {karstene,gabi,ullip}@cs.tu-berlin.de 2 Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain [email protected] 3 Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain [email protected] 4 Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary {varro,gyapay}@mit.bme.hu {lengyel,tihamer}@aut.bme.hu Abstract. Graph transformation has been widely used for expressing model transformations. Especially transformations of visual models can be naturally formulated by graph transformations, since graphs are well suited to describe the underlying structures of models. Based on a com- mon sample model transformation, four different model transformation approaches are presented which all perform graph transformations. At first, a basic solution is presented and crucial points of model transforma- tions are indicated. Subsequent solutions focus mainly on the indicated problems. Finally, a first comparison of the chosen approaches to model transformation is presented where the main ingredients of each approach are summarized. 1 Introduction Raising the abstraction level from textual programming languages to visual mod- eling languages, model transformation techniques and tools have become more focused recently. Model transformation problems can be formulated as graph transformation problems, thus, a variety of tools choose this technique as the underlying mechanism for the transformation engine. This paper aims at com- paring four approaches to model transformation that apply graph transforma- tion techniques for model transformation. These can be characterized by their tool support. The presented tools are AGG [1], AToM3 [15], VIATRA2 [25] and VMTS [26] [16].
    [Show full text]