Concepts for Comparing Modeling Tool Architectures

  • Colin Atkinson
  • Thomas Kühne
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3713)

Abstract

As model-driven development techniques grow in importance so do the capabilities and features of the tools that support them, especially tools that allow users to customize their modeling language. Superficially, many modeling tools seem to offer similar functionality, but under the surface there are important differences that can have an impact on tool builders and users depending on the tool architecture chosen. At present, however, there is no established conceptual framework for characterizing and comparing different tool architectures. In this paper we address this problem by first introducing a conceptual framework for capturing tool architectures, and then — using this framework — discuss the choices available to designers of tools. We then compare and contrast the main canonical architectures in use today.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language, v1.5. OMG document formal/03-03-01 (2003) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Templates and Resources in Software Development Methodologies. To appear Journal of Object Technology (May/June 2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Matula, M.: Netbeans Metadata Repository, http://mdr.netbeans.org/ (2003)
  4. 4.
    Greenfield, J., Short, K.L., Cook, S., Kent, S.: Software Factories: Assembling Applications with Patterns, Models, Frameworks, and Tools. Hungry Minds Inc. (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Model-Driven Development: A Metamodeling Foundation. IEEE Software 20(5), 36–41 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bézivin, J., Gerbé, O.: Towards a Precise Definition of the OMG/MDA Framework. In: Proceedings of ASE 2001, San Diego, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kelly, S., Lyytinen, K., Rossi, M.: MetaEdit+: A fully configurable multi-user and multi-tool CASE and CAME environment. In: Constantopoulos, P., Vassiliou, Y., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) CAiSE 1996. LNCS, vol. 1080, pp. 1–21. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klein, T., Nickel, U.A., Niere, J., Zündorf, A.: From UML to Java And Back Again, Tech. Rep. TR-RI-00-216, University of Paderborn (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jeusfeld, M.A., et al.: ConceptBase: Managing conceptual models about information systems. In: Handbook of Information Systems, pp. 265–285. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mylopoulos, J., Borgida, A., Jarke, M., Koubarakis, M.: Telos: representing knowledge about information systems. ACM Trans. on Information Systems 8(4) (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin Atkinson
    • 1
  • Thomas Kühne
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Mannheim 
  2. 2.Darmstadt University of Technology 

Personalised recommendations