Advertisement

Adding a Textual Syntax to an Existing Graphical Modeling Language: Experience Report with GRL

  • Vahdat Abdelzad
  • Daniel Amyot
  • Timothy C. Lethbridge
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9369)

Abstract

A modelling language usually has an abstract syntax (e.g., expressed with a metamodel) separate from its concrete syntax. The question explored in this paper is: how easy is it to add a textual concrete syntax to an existing language that offers only a concrete graphical syntax? To answer this question, this paper reports on lessons learned during the creation of a textual syntax (supported by an editor and transformation tool) for the Goal-oriented Requirement Language (GRL), which is part of the User Requirements Notation standard. Our experiment shows that although current technologies help create textual modelling languages efficiently with feature-rich editors, there are important conflicts between the reuse of existing metamodels and the usability of the resulting textual syntax that require attention.

Keywords

Goal-oriented Requirement Language Graphical modeling language jUCMNav Metamodel Textual syntax Xtext 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was sponsored in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through its Discovery grant program.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdelzad, V.: Textual modeling language for GRL (2015). https://github.com/vahdat-ab/TGRL/
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Amyot, D., Mussbacher, G.: User requirements notation: the first ten years, the next ten years. J. Softw. (JSW) 6(5), 747–768 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amyot, D., Shamsaei, A., Kealey, J., Tremblay, E., Miga, A., Mussbacher, G., Alhaj, M., Tawhid, R., Braun, E., Cartwright, N.: Towards advanced goal model analysis with jUCMNav. In: Castano, S., Vassiliadis, P., Lakshmanan, L.V.S., Lee, M.L. (eds.) ER 2012 Workshops 2012. LNCS, vol. 7518, pp. 201–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). http://softwareengineering.ca/jucmnav CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ATL Transformation Language (2015). https://eclipse.org/atl/
  6. 6.
    Cabot, J.: UML tools - textual notations to define UML models (2009). http://sumo.ly/5Mb. Accessed 6 June 2015
  7. 7.
    Engelen, L., Van Den Brand, M.: Integrating textual and graphical modelling languages. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 253(7), 105–120 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forward, A., et al.: Model-driven rapid prototyping with Umple. Softw. Pract. Exper. 42(7), 781–797 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gargantini, A., Riccobene, E., Scandurra, P.: Deriving a textual notation from a metamodel: an experience on bridging modelware and grammarware. In: 3M4MDA. CTIT Workshop Proceedings Series WP06-02, pp. 33–48 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garzón, M., Aljamaan, H.I., Lethbridge, T.C.: Umple: A Framework for Model Driven Development of Object-Oriented Systems. In: SANER 2015, pp. 494–498. IEEE CS (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Genon, N., Amyot, D., Heymans, P.: Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the UCM visual notation. In: Kraemer, F.A., Herrmann, P. (eds.) SAM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6598, pp. 221–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heidenreich, F., Johannes, J., Karol, S., Seifert, M., Wende, C.: Derivation and refinement of textual syntax for models. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 114–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    International Telecommunication Union: ITU-T Recommendation Z.100 (12/11) - Specification and Description Language - Overview of SDL-2010 (2011). http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Z.100-201112-I
  14. 14.
    International Telecommunication Union: ITU-T Recommendation Z.111 (11/08) - Notations and guidelines for the definition of ITU-T languages (2008). http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Z.111-200811-I
  15. 15.
    International Telecommunication Union: ITU-T Recommendation Z.120 (02/11) - Message Sequence Chart (MSC) (2011). http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Z.120-201102-I
  16. 16.
    International Telecommunication Union: ITU-T Recommendation Z.151 (10/12) - User Requirements Notation (URN) - Language Definition (2012). http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Z.151-201210-I
  17. 17.
    International Telecommunication Union: ITU-T Recommendation Z.161 (11/14) - Testing and Test Control Notation Version 3: TTCN-3 Core Language (2012). http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Z.161-201411-I
  18. 18.
    International Telecommunication Union: ITU-T Recommendation Z.162 (11/07) - Testing and Test Control Notation Version 3: TTCN-3 Tabular Presentation Format (TFT) (2012). http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Z.162-200711-I
  19. 19.
    Jouault, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I.: TCS: a DSL for the specification of textual concrete syntaxes in model engineering. In: GPCE 2006, pp. 249–254. ACM Press (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu, L., Yu, E.: GRL - goal-oriented requirement language. University of Toronto, Canada (2001). http://www.cs.toronto.edu/km/GRL
  21. 21.
    Moody, D.L., Heymans, P., Matulevičius, R.: Visual syntax does matter: improving the cognitive effectiveness of the \(i^*\) visual notation. Requir. Eng. 15(2), 141–175 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mussbacher, G., Amyot, D., Heymans, P.: Eight deadly sins of GRL. In: 5th International \(i^*\) Workshop (iStar 2011), CEUR-WS, vol. 766, pp. 2–7 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    OMG: UML Human-Usable Textual Notation (HUTN). Version 1.0, formal/2004-08-01 (2004). http://www.omg.org/spec/HUTN/1.0/
  24. 24.
    Pérez Andrés, F., de Lara, J., Guerra, E.: Domain specific languages with graphical and textual views. In: Schürr, A., Nagl, M., Zündorf, A. (eds.) AGTIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 5088, pp. 82–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Petre, M.: Why looking isn’t always seeing: readership skills and graphical programming. Commun. ACM 38(6), 33–44 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rashidi-Tabrizi, R., Mussbacher, G., Amyot, D.: Transforming legulations into performance models in the context of reasoning for outcome-based compliance. In: RELAW 2013, pp. 34–43. IEEE CS (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rose, L.M., Paige, R.F., Kolovos, D.S., Polack, F.A.C.: Constructing models with the human-usable textual notation. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 249–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roy, J.-F., Kealey, J., Amyot, D.: Towards integrated tool support for the user requirements notation. In: Gotzhein, R., Reed, R. (eds.) SAM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4320, pp. 198–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scheidgen, M.: Textual modelling embedded into graphical modelling. In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5095, pp. 153–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schmidt, M., Wider, A., Scheidgen, M., Fischer, J., von Klinski, S.: Refactorings in language development with asymmetric bidirectional model transformations. In: Khendek, F., Toeroe, M., Gherbi, A., Reed, R. (eds.) SDL 2013. LNCS, vol. 7916, pp. 222–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
  32. 32.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vahdat Abdelzad
    • 1
  • Daniel Amyot
    • 1
  • Timothy C. Lethbridge
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations