CINCO: a simplicity-driven approach to full generation of domain-specific graphical modeling tools

  • Stefan NaujokatEmail author
  • Michael Lybecait
  • Dawid Kopetzki
  • Bernhard Steffen
Regular Paper


Even with the help of powerful metamodeling frameworks, the development of domain-specific graphical modeling tools is usually a complex, repetitive, and tedious task, which introduces substantial upfront costs often prohibiting such approaches in practice. In order to reduce these costs, the presented Cinco meta tooling suite is designed to provide a holistic approach that greatly simplifies the development of such domain-specific tools. Our solution is based on the idea to apply the concept of domain specialization also to the (meta-)domain of “domain-specific modeling tools”. Important here is our focus on complex graph-based models, comprising various kinds of nodes and edges together with their individual representation, correlations, and interpretation. This focus allows for high-level specifications of the model structures and functionalities as the prerequisite for push-button tool generation.


Simplicity Abstract tool specification Full code generation Metamodeling Domain-specific tools Hierarchy Service-orientation 


  1. 1.
    Camunda BPM Core Engine. [Online]. Accessed 2 Nov 2016
  2. 2.
    COM: Component Object Model Technologies. [Online]. Accessed 6 Nov 2016
  3. 3.
    Dart programming language. [Online]. Accessed 6 Nov 2016
  4. 4.
    DEViL Benutzerhandbuch. [Online]. Accessed 6 Nov 2016
  5. 5.
    DEViL Installation Manual. [Online]. Accessed 6 Nov 2016
  6. 6.
    Eclipse Sirius. [Online]. Accessed 6 Nov 2016
  7. 7.
    Epsilon. [Online]. Accessed 6 Nov 2016
  8. 8.
    Epsilon EuGENia. [Online]. Accessed 6 Nov 2016
  9. 9.
    Epsilon Object Language. [Online]. Accessed 25 Apr 2014
  10. 10.
    Graphiti—A Graphical Tooling Infrastructure. [Online]. Accessed 6 Nov 2016
  11. 11.
    Marama. [Online]. Accessed 6 Nov 2016
  12. 12.
    MetaCase - Domain-Specific Modeling with MetaEdit+. [Online]. Accessed 6 Nov 2016
  13. 13.
    PNML reference site - Metamodels. [Online]. Accessed 6 Nov 2016
  14. 14.
    RapidMiner Data Science Platform. [Online]. Accessed 2 Nov 2016
  15. 15.
    Spray—a quick way of creating Graphiti. [Online]. Accessed 6 Nov 2016
  16. 16.
    WebGME. [Online]. Accessed 2 Nov 2016
  17. 17.
    Xtend - Modernized Java. [Online]. Accessed 3 Nov 2016
  18. 18.
    Xtext - Language Engineering Made Easy! [Online]. Accessed 6 Nov 2016
  19. 19.
    Almorsy, M., Grundy, J., Rüegg, U.: HorusCML: context-aware domain-specific visual languages designer. In: 2014 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), pp. 133–136. IEEE (2014). doi: 10.1109/VLHCC.2014.6883035
  20. 20.
    Almorsy, M., Grundy, J., Sadus, R., van Straten, W., Barnes, D.G., Kaluza, O.: A suite of domain-specific visual languages for scientific software application modelling. In: 2013 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE, pp. 91–94 (2013). doi: 10.1109/VLHCC.2013.6645249
  21. 21.
    Alur, R., Dill, D.L.: A theory of timed automata. Theor. Comput. Sci. 126(2), 183–235 (1994). doi: 10.1016/0304-3975(94)90010-8 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Backus, J.W.: The syntax and semantics of the proposed international algebraic language of the Zurich ACM-GAMM Conference. In: IFIP Congress, pp. 125–131 (1959)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Behrmann, G., David, A., Larsen, K.G.: A Tutorial on Uppaal 4.0. Tech. rep., Department of Computer Science, Aalborg University, Denmark (2006).
  24. 24.
    Bengtsson, J., Larsen, K.G., Larsson, F., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: Uppaal—a tool suite for automatic verification of real-time systems. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Verification and Control of Hybrid Systems III, no. 1066 in LNCS. Springer, pp. 232–243 (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Berg, A., Donfack, C.P., Gaedecke, J., Ogkler, E., Plate, S., Schamber, K., Schmidt, D., Sönmez, Y., Treinat, F., Weckwerth, J., Wolf, P., Zweihoff, P.: PG 582 - Industrial Programming by Example. Tech. rep., TU Dortmund (2015).
  26. 26.
    Boßelmann, S., Frohme, M., Kopetzki, D., Lybecait, M., Naujokat, S., Neubauer, J., Wirkner, D., Zweihoff, P., Steffen, B.: DIME: a programming-less modeling environment for web applications. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation, Part II (ISoLA 2016), LNCS, vol. 9953. Springer, pp. 809–832 (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-47169-3-60
  27. 27.
    Boßelmann, S., Neubauer, J., Naujokat, S., Steffen, B.: Model-driven design of secure high assurance systems: an introduction to the open platform from the user perspective. In: Margaria, T., Solo, A.M.G. (eds.) The 2016 International Conference on Security and Management (SAM 2016). Special Track “End-to-end Security and Cybersecurity: from the Hardware to Application”. CREA Press, pp. 145–151 (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boyer, B., Corre, K., Legay, A., Sedwards, S.: PLASMA-lab: a flexible, distributable statistical model checking library. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Quantitative Evaluation of Systems (QUEST 2013), LNCS, vol. 8054. Springer (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40196-1_12
  29. 29.
    Brambilla, M., Cabot, J., Wimmer, M.: Model-Driven Software Engineering in Practice. Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael (2012). doi: 10.2200/S00441ED1V01Y201208SWE001 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Broy, M., Havelund, K., Kumar, R.: Towards a unified view of modeling and programming. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation (ISoLA 2016) (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bézivin, J.: On the unification power of models. Softw. Syst. Model. 4(2), 171–188 (2005). doi: 10.1007/s10270-005-0079-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chadli, M., Kim, J.H., Legay, A., Traonouez, L.M., Naujokat, S., Steffen, B.: A Model-Based Framework for the Specification and Analysis of Hierarchical Scheduling Systems (2015). HAL Preprint: hal-01241681v1
  33. 33.
    Chadli, M., Kim, J.H., Legay, A., Traonouez, L.M., Naujokat, S., Steffen, B., Larsen, K.G.: A model-based framework for the specification and analysis of hierarchical scheduling systems. In: Proceedings of Joint 21st International Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems and Automated Verification of Critical Systems (FMICS-AVoCS 2016), LNCS, vol. 9933. Springer (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45943-1_9
  34. 34.
    Doedt, M., Steffen, B.: An evaluation of service integration approaches of business process management systems. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual IEEE Software Engineering Workshop (SEW 2012) (2012). doi: 10.1109/SEW.2012.23
  35. 35.
    Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, pp. 411–420 (1999). doi: 10.1145/302405.302672
  36. 36.
    Fielding, R.T.: Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Irvine (2000).
  37. 37.
    Fowler, M.: Language Workbench. [Online]. Accessed 28 Oct 2016
  38. 38.
    Fowler, M.: Fluent Interface. (2005). [Online]. Accessed 28 Oct 2016
  39. 39.
    Fowler, M.: Language Workbenches: The Killer-App for Domain Specific Languages? (2005). [Online]. Accessed 28 Oct 2016
  40. 40.
    Fowler, M., Parsons, R.: Domain-Specific Languages. Addison-Wesley ACM Press (2011).
  41. 41.
    Gronback, R.C.: Eclipse Modeling Project: A Domain-Specific Language (DSL) Toolkit. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2008)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Grundy, J., Hosking, J., Li, K.N., Ali, N.M., Huh, J., Li, R.L.: Generating domain-specific visual language tools from abstract visual specifications. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(4), 487–515 (2013). doi: 10.1109/TSE.2012.33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Howard, R.A.: Dynamic Programming and Markov Processes. MIT Press, Cambridge (1960)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., Rouncefield, M., Kristoffersen, S.: Empirical assessment of MDE in industry. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’11) (2011). doi: 10.1145/1985793.1985858
  46. 46.
    JetBrains: Meta Programming System. [Online]. Accessed 6 Nov 2016
  47. 47.
    John, K.H., Tiegelkamp, M.: IEC 61131-3: Programming Industrial Automation Systems: Concepts and Programming Languages, Requirements for Programming Systems, Decision-Making Aids, 2nd edn. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I.: ATL: a model transformation tool. Sci. Comput. Program. 72(1–2), 31–39 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.scico.2007.08.002 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jörges, S.: Construction and Evolution of Code Generators - A Model-Driven and Service-Oriented Approach. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7747. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany (2013)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jörges, S., Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Genesys: service-oriented construction of property conform code generators. Innov. Syst. Softw. Eng. 4(4), 361–384 (2008). doi: 10.1007/s11334-008-0071-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kastens, U., Pfahler, P., Jung, M.T.: The Eli System. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Compiler Construction (CC’98), LNCS, vol. 1383. Springer, pp. 294–297 (1998). doi: 10.1007/BFb0026439
  52. 52.
    Katoen, J.P.: Labelled transition systems. In: Broy, M., Jonsson, B., Katoen, J.P., Leucker, M., Pretschner, A. (eds.) Model-Based Testing of Reactive Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3472. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 615–616 (2005). doi: 10.1007/11498490_29
  53. 53.
    Kelly, S., Lyytinen, K., Rossi, M.: MetaEdit+: A Fully Configurable Multi-User and Multi-Tool CASE and CAME Environment. In: CAiSE, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1080. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 1–21 (1996). doi: 10.1007/3-540-61292-0_1
  54. 54.
    Kelly, S., Tolvanen, J.P.: Domain-Specific Modeling: Enabling Full Code Generation. Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Press, Hoboken (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kolovos, D., Rose, L., García-Domínguez, A., Paige, R.: The Epsilon Book. Published online: (2015). Last update: February 4, 2015
  56. 56.
    Kolovos, D.S., Rose, L.M., bin Abid, S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C., Botterweck, G.: Taming EMF and GMF using model transformation. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS 2010), pp. 211–225 (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-16145-2_15
  57. 57.
    Kopetzki, D.: Model-Based Generation of Graphical Editors on the Basis of Abstract Meta-model Specifications. Master thesis, TU Dortmund (2014)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kouhen, A.E., Dumoulin, C., Gerard, S., Boulet, P.: Evaluation of Modeling Tools Adaptation (2012). HAL Report: hal-00706701v2
  59. 59.
    Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: PRISM 4.0: verification of probabilistic real-time systems. In: Proceedings of 23rd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV 2011), LNCS, vol. 6806. Springer, pp. 585–591 (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_47
  60. 60.
    Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Segala, R., Sproston, J.: Automatic verification of real-time systems with discrete probability distributions. Theor. Comput. Sci. 282(1), 101–150 (2002). doi: 10.1016/S0304-3975(01)00046-9 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lamprecht, A.L.: User-Level Workflow Design—A Bioinformatics Perspective, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8311. Springer (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-45389-2
  62. 62.
    Lamprecht, A.L., Margaria, T.: Scientific workflows: eternal components, changing interfaces, varying compositions. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B., Merten, M. (eds.) ISoLA 2012, Part I, LNCS, vol. 7609, pp. 47–63. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lamprecht, A.L., Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Bio-jETI: a framework for semantics-based service composition. BMC Bioinform. 10(Suppl 10), S8 (2009). doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-10-S10-S8
  64. 64.
    Lamprecht, A.L., Naujokat, S., Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Synthesis-based loose programming. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC 2010), Porto, Portugal. IEEE, pp. 262–267 (2010). doi: 10.1109/QUATIC.2010.53
  65. 65.
    Lédeczi, A., Maróti, M., Völgyesi, P.: The Generic Modeling Environment. Tech. rep., Institute for Software Integrated Systems, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37221, USA (2003).
  66. 66.
    Ledeczi, A., Maroti, M., Bakay, A., Karsai, G., Garrett, J., Thomasson, C., Nordstrom, G., Sprinkle, J., Volgyesi, P.: The generic modeling environment. In: Workshop on Intelligent Signal Processing (WISP 2001) (2001)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lybecait, M.: Entwicklung und Implementierung eines Frameworks zur grafischen Modellierung von Modelltransformationen auf Basis von EMF-Metamodellen und Genesys. diploma thesis, TU Dortmund (2012)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Lightweight coarse-grained coordination: a scalable system-level approach. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 5(2–3), 107–123 (2004). doi: 10.1007/s10009-003-0119-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Business process modelling in the jABC: the one-thing-approach. In: Cardoso, J., van der Aalst, W. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Business Process Modeling. IGI Global, Pennsylvania (2009)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Simplicity as a driver for agile innovation. Computer 43(6), 90–92 (2010). doi: 10.1109/MC.2010.177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Margaria, T., Steffen, B., Reitenspies̈, M.: Service-oriented design: the jABC approach. In: Cubera, F., Krämer, B.J., Papazoglou, M.P. (eds.) Service Oriented Computing (SOC), no. 05462 in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany, Dagstuhl, Germany (2006).
  72. 72.
    Margaria, T., Steffen, B., Reitenspieß, M.: Service-Oriented Design: The Roots. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC 2005), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, LNCS, vol. 3826, pp. 450–464. Springer (2005). doi: 10.1007/11596141_34
  73. 73.
    McAffer, J., Lemieux, J.M., Aniszczyk, C.: Eclipse Rich Client Platform, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2010)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Mohagheghi, P., Haugen, Ø.: Evaluating domain-specific modelling solutions. In: Advances in Conceptual Modeling—Applications and Challenges. Proceedings of ER 2010 Workshops ACM-L, CMLSA, CMS, DE@ER, FP-UML, SeCoGIS, WISM, LNCS, vol. 6413. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-16385-2_27
  75. 75.
    Mussbacher, G., Amyot, D., Breu, R., Bruel, J.M., Cheng, B.H.C., Collet, P., Combemale, B., France, R.B., Heldal, R., Hill, J., Kienzle, J., Schöttle, M., Steimann, F., Stikkolorum, D., Whittle, J.: The relevance of model-driven engineering thirty years from now. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS’14), no. 8767 in LNCS. Springer International Publishing, pp. 183–200 (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-11653-2_12
  76. 76.
    Naujokat, S., Lamprecht, A.L., Steffen, B.: Loose programming with PROPHETS. In: de Lara, J., Zisman, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2012), Tallinn, Estonia, LNCS, vol. 7212, pp. 94–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-28872-2_7
  77. 77.
    Naujokat, S., Neubauer, J., Lamprecht, A.L., Steffen, B., Jörges, S., Margaria, T.: Simplicity-first model-based plug-in development. Softw. Pract. Exp. 44(3), 277–297 (2013). doi: 10.1002/spe.2243. First published online
  78. 78.
    Naujokat, S., Neubauer, J., Margaria, T., Steffen, B.: Meta-level reuse for mastering domain specialization. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation, Part II (ISoLA 2016), LNCS, vol. 9953. Springer, pp. 218–237 (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-47169-3_16
  79. 79.
    Naujokat, S., Traonouez, L.M., Isberner, M., Steffen, B., Legay, A.: Domain-specific code generator modeling: a case study for multi-faceted concurrent systems. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation, Part I (ISoLA 2014), LNCS, vol. 8802. Springer, pp. 463–480 (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-45234-9_33
  80. 80.
    Neubauer, J., Frohme, M., Steffen, B., Margaria, T.: Prototype-driven development of web applications with DyWA. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation, Part I (ISoLA 2014), no. 8802 in LNCS. Springer, pp. 56–72 (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-45234-9_5
  81. 81.
    Neubauer, J., Steffen, B.: Plug-and-play higher-order process integration. IEEE Computer 46(11), 56–62 (2013). doi: 10.1109/MC.2013.296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Neubauer, J., Steffen, B., Margaria, T.: Higher-order process modeling: product-lining, variability modeling and beyond. Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci. 129, 259–283 (2013). doi: 10.4204/EPTCS.129.16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Object Management Group (OMG): OMG Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification Version 2.4.1. [Online]. Accessed 23 Apr 2014
  84. 84.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Documents Associated with BPMN Version 2.0.1. (2013). [Online]. Accessed 2 Dec 2016
  85. 85.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Documents Associated with Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN), Version 1.0. (2014). [Online]. Accessed 25 Oct 2016
  86. 86.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Documents associated with Object Constraint Language (OCL), Version 2.4. (2014). [Online]. Accessed 2 Dec 2016
  87. 87.
    Petri, C.A.: Communication with automata. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Hamburg (1966).
  88. 88.
    Reisig, W.: Petri Nets: An Introduction, Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series, vol. 4. Springer (1985)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobsen, I., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, The Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series (2004)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Schmidt, C., Cramer, B., Kastens, U.: Generating visual structure editors from high-level specifications. Tech. rep., University of Paderborn, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Steffen, B., Margaria, T., Braun, V., Kalt, N.: Hierarchical service definition. Annu. Rev. Commun. ACM 51, 847–856 (1997)Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Steffen, B., Margaria, T., Claßen, A., Braun, V.: The METAFrame’95 Environment. In: CAV, pp. 450–453 (1996). doi: 10.1007/3-540-61474-5_100
  93. 93.
    Steffen, B., Margaria, T., Nagel, R., Jörges, S., Kubczak, C.: Model-driven development with the jABC. In: Bin, E., Ziv, A., Ur, S. (eds.) Hardware and Software, Verification and Testing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4383. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 92–108 (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-70889-6_7
  94. 94.
    Steffen, B., Naujokat, S.: Archimedean Points: The Essence for Mastering Change. LNCS Transactions on Foundations for Mastering Change (FoMaC) 1(1), 22–46 (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46508-1_3
  95. 95.
    Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Paternostro, M., Merks, E.: EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2008)Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Weber, M., Kindler, E.: The petri net markup language. In: Petri Net Technology for Communication-Based Systems, LNCS, vol. 2472. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 124–144 (2003). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-40022-6_7
  97. 97.
    Weckwerth, J.: Cinco Evaluation: CMMN-Modellierung und -Ausführung in der Praxis. Master’s thesis, TU Dortmund (2016)Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Wheeler, D.A.: SLOCCount Home Page. [Online]. Accessed 2 May 2015
  99. 99.
    Wortmann, N.: Modellbasierte Modellierung von industriellen Zentrifugen mit Codegenerierung für Steuerungssysteme. Bachelor thesis, Münster University of Applied Sciences (2015)Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Wortmann, N., Michel, M., Naujokat, S.: A Fully model-based approach to software development for industrial centrifuges. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation, Part II (ISoLA 2016), LNCS, vol. 9953. Springer, pp. 774–783 (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-47169-3_58
  101. 101.
    Zhu, N., Grundy, J., Hosking, J.: Pounamu: a meta-tool for multi-view visual language environment construction. In: 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing (2004). doi: 10.1109/VLHCC.2004.41
  102. 102.
    Zweihoff, P.: Cinco Products for the Web. Master thesis, TU Dortmund (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Naujokat
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Lybecait
    • 1
  • Dawid Kopetzki
    • 1
  • Bernhard Steffen
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair for Programming Systems, Department of Computer ScienceTU Dortmund UniversityDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations