EAP - Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences

PUBLISHED
SINCE 1952

proceedings
of the estonian academy of sciences

ISSN 1736-7530 (Electronic)
ISSN 1736-6046 (Print)

Open Access Journal

CiteScore: 2.4

Impact Factor (2022): 0.9

DPF Workbench: a multi-level language workbench for MDE; pp. 3–15

PDF | doi: 10.3176/proc.2013.1.02

Authors

Yngve Lamo, Xiaoliang Wang, Florian Mantz, Øyvind Bech, Anders Sandven, Adrian Rutle

Abstract

This paper presents the DPF Workbench, a language workbench for (meta)modelling and code generation. The DPF Workbench includes a graphical specification editor for the Diagram Predicate Framework (DPF), which provides a graph-based formalization of (meta)modelling and model transformation. The tool offers functionality for fully diagrammatic specifications of domain-specific modelling languages. Moreover, the DPF Workbench supports the development of metamodelling hierarchies with an arbitrary number of metalevels; i.e. each model at a metalevel can be used as a metamodel for the metalevel below. The DPF Workbench facilitates the generation of domain-specific diagrammatic editors out of these metamodels. The conformance relations between adjacent metalevels are checked using typing morphisms and validation of diagrammatic constraints. In addition, the DPF Workbench provides a signature editor for the definition of software constraints and their corresponding validators. The code generator is a newly added component that facilitates the generation of software from models defined in the DPF Workbench. The features of the DPF Workbench are illustrated by a running example presenting a metamodelling hierarchy for business process modelling and sketching how these models can be transformed to programs by the code generation facility.

References

1. Atkinson, C. and Kühne, T. Rearchitecting the UML infrastructure. TOMACS, 2002, 12(4), 290–321.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/643120.643123

2. AToM³: A Tool for Multi-formalism and Meta-Modelling. Project Web Site. http://atom3.cs.mcgill.ca/ (accessed 10.12.2012).

3. Baar, T. Correctly defined concrete syntax for visual modeling languages. In MoDELS 2006 (Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., and Reggio, G., eds). LNCS, Vol. 4199. Springer, 2006, 111–125.

4. Barnat, J., Brim, L., Češka, M., and Ročkai, P. DiVinE: parallel distributed model checker (tool paper). In Parallel and Distributed Methods in Verification and High Performance Computational Systems Biology (HiBi/PDMC 2010). IEEE, 2010, 4–7.

5. Barr, M. and Wells, C. Category Theory for Computing Science. 3rd edn. Les Publications CRM, Montreal, 1999.

6. Bergen University College and University of Bergen. Diagram Predicate Framework Web Site. http://dpf.hib.no/ (accessed 10.12.2012).

7. De Lara, J. and Guerra, E. Deep meta-modelling with MetaDepth. In TOOLS 2010 (Vitek, J., ed.). LNCS, Vol. 6141. Springer, 2010, 1–20.

8. De Lara, J. and Vangheluwe, H. Using AToM³ as a Meta-CASE Tool. In ICEIS 2002. April 2002, 642–649.

9. Diskin, Z. Mathematics of generic specifications for model management, I and II. In Encyclopedia of Database Technologies and Applications. Information Science Reference, 2005, 351–365.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-560-3.ch044

10. Diskin, Z., Kadish, B., Piessens, F., and Johnson, M. Universal arrow foundations for visual modeling. In Diagrams 2000 (Anderson, M., Cheng, P., and Haarslev, V., eds). LNCS, Vol. 1889. Springer, 2000, 345–360.

11. Eclipse Platform. Project Web Site. http://www.eclipse.org (accessed 10.12.2012).

12. Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., and Taentzer, G. Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. Springer, 2006.

13. Fowler, M. Domain-Specific Languages. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2010.

14. GME: Generic Modeling Environment. Project Web Site. http://www.isis.vanderbilt.edu/Projects/gme/ (accessed 10.12.2012).

15. Gonzalez-Perez, C. and Henderson-Sellers, B. Metamodelling for Software Engineering. Wiley, 2008.

16. Graphical Editing Framework. Project Web Site. http://www.eclipse.org/gef/ (accessed 10.12.2012).

17. Herrington, J. Code Generation in Action. Revised edition. Manning Publications, July 2003.

18. IBM. Rational Software Architect. http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/architect/swarchitect/ (accessed 10.12.2012).

19. Kalakata, S. Formalisation of Simple MethOd Declaration Language (SMODL) by DPF. Master’s thesis, Department of Computer Engineering, Bergen University College, Norway, November 2012.

20. Lamo, Y., Wang, X., Mantz, F., Bech, Ø., and Rutle, A. DPF editor: a multi-layer diagrammatic (meta)modelling environment. In SPLST 2011 (Penjam, J., ed.). TUT Press, Tallinn, October 2011, 55–65.

21. Lamo, Y., Wang, X., Mantz, F., MacCaull, W., and Rutle, A. DPF workbench: a diagrammatic multi-layer domain specific (meta-)modelling environment. In Computer and Information Science (Roger, L., ed.). Studies in Computer Intelligence, Vol. 429. Springer, 2012, 37–52.

22. Lengyel, L., Levendovszky, T., and Charaf, H. Constraint validation support in visual model transformation systems. Acta Cybernetica, 2005, 17(2), 339–357.

23. Mens, T. and Van Gorp, P. A taxonomy of model transformation. ENTCS, 2006, 152, 125–142.

24. Object Management Group. Meta-Object Facility Specification, January 2006. http://www.omg.org/ spec/MOF/2.0/ (accessed 10.12.2012).

25. Object Management Group. Object Constraint Language Specification, February 2010. http://www.omg.org/spec/OCL/2.2/ (accessed 10.12.2012).

26. Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language Specification, May 2010. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.3/ (accessed 10.12.2012).

27. Reinhard, T., Seybold, C., Meier, S., Glinz, M., and Merlo-Schett, N. Human-friendly line routing for hierarchical diagrams. In ASE 2006. IEEE Computer Society, 2006, 273–276.

28. Rossini, A., de Lara, J., Guerra, E., Rutle, A., and Lamo, Y. A graph transformation-based semantics for deep metamodelling. In AGTIVE 2011 (Schürr, A., Varró, D., and Varró, G., eds). LNCS, Vol. 7233. Springer, 2011, 19–34.

29. Rossini, A., Rutle, A., Lamo, Y., and Wolter, U. A formalisation of the copy-modify-merge approach to version control in MDE. JLAP, 2010, 79(7), 636–658.

30. Rutle, A. Diagram Predicate Framework: A Formal Approach to MDE. PhD thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Bergen, Norway, 2010.

31. Rutle, A., MacCaull, W., Wang, H., and Lamo, Y. A metamodelling approach to behavioural modelling. In BM-FA ’12. ACM, 2012, 5:1–5:10.

32. Rutle, A., Rossini, A., Lamo, Y., and Wolter, U. A diagrammatic formalisation of MOF-based modelling languages. In TOOLS 2009 (Oriol, M., Meyer, B., Aalst, W. et al., eds). LNBIP, Vol. 33. Springer, 2009, 37–56.

33. Rutle, A., Rossini, A., Lamo, Y., and Wolter, U. A formal approach to the specification and transformation of constraints in MDE. JLAP, 2012, 81(4), 422–457.

34. Sandven, A. Metamodel based Code Generation in DPF Editor. Master’s thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Bergen, Norway, April 2012.

35. Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Paternostro, M., and Merks, E. EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework 2.0. 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2008.

36. Taentzer, G., Mantz, F., and Lamo, Y. Co-transformation of graphs and type graphs with application to model co-evolution. In ICGT 2012 (Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.-J., and Rozenberg, G., eds). LNCS, Vol. 7562. Springer, 2012, 326–340.

37. The Entity MetaEdit+ Workbench. Project Web Site. http:// www.metacase.com/mep/ (accessed 10.12.2012).

38. TOPCASED. Project Web Site. http://www.topcased.org (accessed 10.12.2012).

Back to Issue