Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 171–188 | Cite as

On the unification power of models

Expert’s voice

Abstract

In November 2000, the OMG made public the MDA™initiative, a particular variant of a new global trend called MDE (Model Driven Engineering). The basic ideas of MDA are germane to many other approaches such as generative programming, domain specific languages, model-integrated computing, generic model management, software factories, etc. MDA may be defined as the realization of MDE principles around a set of OMG standards like MOF, XMI, OCL, UML, CWM, SPEM, etc. MDE is presently making several promises about the potential benefits that could be reaped from a move from code-centric to model-based practices. When we observe these claims, we may wonder when they may be satisfied: on the short, medium or long term or even never perhaps for some of them. This paper tries to propose a vision of the development of MDE based on some lessons learnt in the past 30 years in the development of object technology. The main message is that a basic principle (“Everything is an object”) was most helpful in driving the technology in the direction of simplicity, generality and power of integration. Similarly in MDE, the basic principle that “Everything is a model” has many interesting properties, among others the capacity to generate a realistic research agenda. We postulate here that two core relations (representation and conformance) are associated to this principle, as inheritance and instantiation were associated to the object unification principle in the class-based languages of the 80’s. We suggest that this may be most useful in understanding many questions about MDE in general and the MDA approach in particular. We provide some illustrative examples. The personal position taken in this paper would be useful if it could generate a critical debate on the research directions in MDE.

Keywords

MDE MDA Models Metamodels 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Badros GJ (2000) JavaML An XML-Based Source Code representation for Java Programs. http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/gjb/JavaML/Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernstein PA, Levy AL, Pottinger RA (2000) A Vision for Management of Complex Systems, MSR-TR-2000-53. ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/tr/tr-2000-53.pdfGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bézivin J, Lemesle R (2000) Some Initial Considerations on the Layered Organization of Metamodels. In: SCI 2000/ISAS 2000, International Conference on Information Systems, Analysis and Synthesis, vol IX, Orlando, August 2000Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bézivin J (2001) From Object-Composition to Model-Transformation with the MDA. TOOLS-USA’2001, Santa Barbara, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bézivin J, Gérard S, Muller PA, Rioux L (2003) MDA Components: Challenges and Opportunities. Metamodelling for MDA Workshop, York, 2003Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bézivin J, Gerbé O (2001) Towards a Precise Definition of the OMG/MDA(TM) Framework. ASE’01, Automated Software Engineering, San Diego, USA, November 26–29, 2001Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bézivin J, Jouault F, Valduriez P (2005) The ATLAS Model Management Architecture and ATL papers. http://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/lina/atl/Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bézivin J, Lemesle R (1997) Ontology-based Layered Semantics for Precise OA&D Modeling. In: ECOOP’97 Workshop on Precise Semantics for Object-Oriented Modeling Techniques, pp 31–37. http://www.db.informatik.uni-bremen.de/umlbib/conf/ECOOP97PSMT.htmlGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Borning A (1979) ThingLab – A Constraint-Oriented Simulation Laboratory. Ph.D. dissertation, Dep. Computer Science, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif., March 1979 (revised version available as Rep. SSL-79-3, Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, Calif., July 1979)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cantwell Smith B (1985) Limits of Correctness in Computers. Report CSLI-85-36, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, California, October 1985, pp 275–293Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Encarta MSDN Encyclopedia (2005) http://encarta.msn.com/Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Floyd RW (1967) Assigning Meaning to Programs. In: Proc. Symposium on Applied Mathematics, Vol. 1, pp. 19–32. American Mathematical SocietyGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gabriel G (2002) Objects Have Failed OOPSLA’02 debate. Seattle, Washington. http://www.dreamsongs.com/NewFiles/ObjectsHaveFailed.pdfGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greenfield J, Short K (2003) Software factories Assembling Applications with Patterns, Models, Frameworks and Tools. In: OOPSLA’03, Anaheim, CA, Companion Volume, pp 16–27Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guarino N, Welty C (2000) Towards a Methodology for Ontology-based MDE. In: Bézivin J, Ernst J (eds) First International Workshop on MDE, Nice, France, June 13, 2000. Available from http://www.metamodel.com/IWME00/Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jackson M (1995) The World and the Machine; a Keynote Address at ICSE-17. In: Proceedings of ICSE-17, ACM Press, 1995Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klint P, Lämmel R, Verhoef C (2003) Towards an engineering discipline for grammarware. Working draft paper July 2003. http://www.cs.vu.nl/grammarware/Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kurtev I, Bézivin J, Aksit M (2002) Technical Spaces: An Initial Appraisal. In: CoopIS, DOA’2002 Federated Conferences, Industrial track, IrvineGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ladkin P (1996) On needing models. Universität Bielefeld, 22/02/96. http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lemesle R (1998) Transformation rules based on metamodeling. In: EDOC’98, San Diego, 3–5 November 1998. http://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/lina/atl/publications/Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group OMG/MOF Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification, September 1997. http://www.omg.org/docs/ad/97-08-14.pdfGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Object Management Group OMG/RFP/QVT MOF 2.0 Query/Views/Transformations RFP, October 2002. http://www.omg.org/docs/ad/02-04-10.pdfGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Object Management Group XML Model Interchange (XMI), October 1998. http://www.omg.org/docs/ad/98-10-05.pdfGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rothenberg J (1990) Prototyping as Modeling: What is Being Modeled? Rand Note N-3191-DARPA, July 1990Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rothenberg J (1989) The Nature of Modeling. In: William LE, Loparo KA, Nelson NR (eds) Artificial Intelligence, Simulation, and Modeling. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, pp 75–92Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seidewitz E (2003) What models mean. IEEE Software 20(5):26–32, September/October 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Soley R, the OMG staff (2000) Model-Driven Architecture. November 2000. ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/omg/00-11-05.pdfGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sowa J (2000) Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics. In: ICCS’2000, Darmstadt, Germany, August 14, 2000. Published in: Ganter B, Mineau GW (eds) Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues. Lecture Notes in AI #1867. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 55–81. http://www.bestweb.net/∼sowa/peirce/ontometa.htmGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thomas D (2004) MDA: Revenge of the Modelers or UML Utopia. IEEE Software, May 2004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ATLAS Group(INRIA & LINA) University of NantesNantes Cedex 3France

Personalised recommendations