ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Specifications, not meta-models
Full text PdfPdf (136 KB)
Source International Conference on Software Engineering archive
Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Global integrated model management table of contents
Shanghai, China
SESSION: Metamodels and semantics table of contents
Pages: 47 - 54  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISBN:1-59593-410-3
Authors
James Skene  University College London, London, UK
Wolfgang Emmerich  University College London, London, UK
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 9,   Downloads (12 Months): 71,   Citation Count: 3
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1138304.1138315
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

In a model-driven development, software engineers will have to manage multiple artifacts expressed in several languages. Current meta-modelling and concrete syntax standards fail to adequately preserve a link between artifacts and the languages in which they are expressed, potentially leading to inconsistencies and misunderstandings both in the production and reuse of artifacts. Standards such as XMI and JMI permit the meta-model of an artifact to be accessed. However, such meta-models primarily define the syntax of a language. A full semantic definition requires a supporting document, the language specification, which is typically not explicitly referenced. In this paper we argue that the role of meta-models and specifications should be combined to eliminate this ambiguity. We describe the possible impact on OMG standards and standardisation processes that this would have. We present an open-source project that implements this philosophy, and a case-study in which a domain-specific language is used to express service-level agreements, the legalistic nature of which imposes strong requirements for semantic accessibility.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
The Object Management Group (OMG). http://www.omg.org/.
 
2
The SLAng language specification v. 0.1, 2005. http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/j.skene/slang/spec.html.
 
3
The UCL MDA Tools, 2006. http://uclmda.sourceforge.net/.
 
4
H. Bauerdick, M. Gogolla, and F. Gutsche. Detecting OCL traps in the UML 2.0 superstructure: An experience report. In UML 2004, number 3273 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), pages 188--196. Springer-Verlag, 2004.
 
5
A. S. Evans and S. Kent. Meta-modelling semantics of UML: the pUML approach. In 2nd International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, volume 1723 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS),pages 140--155, Colorado, USA, 1999. Springer-Verlag.
 
6
The Internet Society. Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax, rfc: 3986 edition, 2005. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt.
 
7
Java Community Process. Java(TM) Metadata Interface API Specification 1.0 Final Release, June 2002.
 
8
 
9
The Object Management Group (OMG). MDA Guide Version 1.0.1, omg/2003-06-01 edition, June 2003.
 
10
 
11
 
12
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.1 Specification, January 2003. http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/.


Collaborative Colleagues:
James Skene: colleagues
Wolfgang Emmerich: colleagues