Bridging Grammarware and Modelware

  • Manuel Wimmer
  • Gerhard Kramler
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3844)

Abstract

In Software Engineering many text-based languages and supporting tools are used, forming the grammarware technical space. Currently model driven engineering is the new emerging paradigm for software engineering, which uses modelling languages and tools, forming the modelware technical space. Transition to the new technical space and interoperability between these two technical spaces is needed in many development scenarios. Building a bridge between these two technical spaces is a tedious task, that has to be repeated for each language to be transformed. Therefore, we propose a generic bridge between grammarware and modelware technical spaces, that can generate a specific bridge based on the EBNF of a given language semi-automatically. The generation comprises of two steps, (1) automatic generation of metamodel corresponding to the EBNF and (2) annotations to provide the additional semantics not captured by the EBNF. The generated bridge is capable of bi-directional transformations between sentences (programs) and corresponding models and can be used in re-engineering applications and for integration of text-based and model-based tools.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alanen, M., Porres, I.: A Relation Between Context-Free Grammars and Meta Object Facility Metamodels. Technical report, Turku Centre for Computer Science (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bézivin, J., Devedzic, V., Djuric, D., Favreau, J.M., Gasevic, D., Jouault, F.: An M3-Neutral infrastructure for bridging model engineering and ontology engineering. In: Proceedings of the first International Conference on Interoperability of Enteprise Software and Applications, INTEROP-ESA 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.: Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO. ISO/IEC 14977:1996(E), Information technology - Syntactic metalanguage - Extended BNF (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klint, P., Lämmel, R., Verhoef, C.: Towards an engineering discipline for grammarware. In: ACM TOSEM, May30, p. 47 (2005) (to appear) Online since July 2003Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koskimies, K.: Object Orientation in Attribute Grammars. In: Alblas, H., Melichar, B. (eds.) SAGA School 1991. LNCS, vol. 545, pp. 297–329. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kurtev, I., Aksit, M., Bézivin, J.: Technical Spaces: An Initial Appraisal. CoopIS, DOA2́002 Federated Conferences, Industrial track, Irvine (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    OMG. Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Core Specification (2003), http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/03-10-04.pdf
  9. 9.
    OMG. Architecture Driven Modernization (2005), www.omg.org/adm
  10. 10.
    OMG. XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) Specification. OMG (2005), http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/05-05-01.pdf
  11. 11.
    Stansifer, R.: EBNF Grammar for Mini-Java (August 2005), http://www.cs.fit.edu/~ryan/cse4251/mini_java_grammar.html
  12. 12.
    Wimmer, M., Kramler, G.: Bridging Grammarware and Modelware. Technical report, Vienna University of Technology (2005), http://www.big.tuwien.ac.at/research/publications/2005/1105.pdf
  13. 13.
    Wirth, N.: What can we do about the unnecessary diversity of notation for syntactic definitions. Communications of the ACM 20(11) (November 1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel Wimmer
    • 1
  • Gerhard Kramler
    • 1
  1. 1.Business Informatics GroupVienna University of TechnologyAustria

Personalised recommendations