Advertisement

Using Workflows to Automate Activities in MDE Tools

  • Miguel Andrés Gamboa
  • Eugene Syriani
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 692)

Abstract

Model-driven engineering (MDE) enables to generate software tools by systematically modeling and transforming this models. However, the usability of these tools is far from efficient. Common MDE activities, such as creating a domain-specific language, are non-trivial and often require repetitive tasks. This results in unnecessary increases of development time. The goal of this paper is to increase the productivity of modelers in their every day activities by automating the tasks they perform in current MDE tools. We propose an MDE-based solution where the user defines a reusable workflow that can be parametrized at run-time and executed. Our solution works for frameworks that support two level metamodeling as well as deep metamodeling. We implemented our solution in the MDE tool AToMPM. We also performed an empirical evaluation of our approach and showed that we reduce both mechanical and thinking efforts of the user. The ideas and concepts of this paper were introduced at the MODELSWARD conference [1] and are extended in this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Gamboa, M.A., Syriani, E.: Automating activities in MDE tools. In: Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development, SciTePress, pp. 123–133 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schmidt, D.C.: Model-driven engineering. IEEE Comput. 39, 25–31 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whittle, J., Hutchinson, J., Rouncefield, M.: The state of practice in model-driven engineering. IEEE Softw. 31, 79–85 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H., Mannadiar, R., Hansen, C., Van Mierlo, S., Ergin, H.: AToMPM: a web-based modeling environment. In: Invited Talks, Demonstration Session, Poster Session, and ACM Student Research Competition, MODELS 2013, vol. 1115, pp. 21–25. CEUR-WS.org (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Paternostro, M., Merks, E.: EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley Professional, Boston (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ledeczi, A., Maroti, M., Bakay, A., Karsai, G., Garrett, J., Thomason, C., Nordstrom, G., Sprinkle, J., Volgyesi, P.: The generic modeling environment. In: Workshop on Intelligent Signal Processing, WISP 2001, vol. 17 (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., Mylopoulos, J., Vassiliou, Y. (eds.) CAiSE 1996. LNCS, vol. 1080, pp. 1–21. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). doi: 10.1007/3-540-61292-0_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    AToMPM tutorial (2013). http://www.slideshare.net/eugenesyriani/atompm-introductory-tutorial. Accessed 07 Aug 2015
  9. 9.
    EMFText screencast (2014). http://www.emftext.org/index.php/EMFText_Getting_Started_Screencast. Accessed 07 Aug 2015
  10. 10.
    JetBrains MPS (2015). https://www.jetbrains.com/mps/ Accessed 07 Aug 2015
  11. 11.
    OMG: Software & Systems Process Engineering Metamodel specification 2.0 edn. (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    OASIS: Web Services Business Process Execution Language, 2nd edn. (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Syriani, E., Ergin, H.: Operational semantics of UML activity diagram: an application in project management. In: RE 2012 Workshops, pp. 1–8. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Russell, N., van der Aalst, W., ter Hofstede, A., Mulyar, N.: Workflow Control-Flow Patterns: A Revised View. Technical report BPM-06-22, BPM Center (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gonzalez Perez, C., Henderson Sellers, B.: Metamodelling for Software Engineering. Wiley Publishing, Hoboken (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lara, J.D., Guerra, E., Cuadrado, J.S.: When and how to use multilevel modelling. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 24, 1–46 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: The essence of multilevel metamodeling. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45441-1_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    WMC: Terminology and glossary. Technical report, WFMC-TC-1011, Workflow Management Coalition (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Mierlo, S., Barroca, B., Vangheluwe, H., Syriani, E., Kühne, T.: Multi-level modelling in the modelverse. In: Workshop on Multi-Level Modelling, MULTI 2014, vol. 1286, pp. 83–92. CEUR-WS.org (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lara, J., Guerra, E.: Deep meta-modelling with MetaDepth. In: Vitek, J. (ed.) TOOLS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6141, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-13953-6_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Atkinson, C., Gerbig, R.: Melanie: multi-level modeling and ontology engineering environment. In: International Master Class on Model-Driven Engineering: Modeling Wizards, MW 2012, pp. 7:1–7:2. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H.: A modular timed model transformation language. J. Softw. Syst. Model. 12, 387–414 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lúcio, L., Mustafiz, S., Denil, J., Vangheluwe, H., Jukss, M.: FTG+PM: an integrated framework for investigating model transformation chains. In: Khendek, F., Toeroe, M., Gherbi, A., Reed, R. (eds.) SDL 2013. LNCS, vol. 7916, pp. 182–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-38911-5_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H.: Programmed graph rewriting with time for simulation-based design. In: Vallecillo, A., Gray, J., Pierantonio, A. (eds.) ICMT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5063, pp. 91–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-69927-9_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Russell, N., Aalst, W., Hofstede, A.: Workflow exception patterns. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 288–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11767138_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Syriani, E., Kienzle, J., Vangheluwe, H.: Exceptional transformations. In: Tratt, L., Gogolla, M. (eds.) ICMT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6142, pp. 199–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-13688-7_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    von Pilgrim, J., Ulke, B., Thies, A., Steimann, F.: Model/code co-refactoring: an MDE approach. In: Automated Software Engineering, pp. 682–687. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mens, T.: On the use of graph transformations for model refactoring. In: Lämmel, R., Saraiva, J., Visser, J. (eds.) GTTSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 4143, pp. 219–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11877028_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang, J., Lin, Y., Gray, J.: Generic and domain-specific model refactoring using a model transformation engine. In: Beydeda, S., Book, M., Gruhn, V. (eds.) Model-Driven Software Development, pp. 199–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Metamodel refactoring catalog (2016). http://www.metamodelrefactoring.org/?page_id=584. Accessed 19 May 2016
  31. 31.
    MacKenzie, I.S.: Fitts’ law as a research and design tool in human-computer interaction. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, 91–139 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    WMC: Process Definition Interface - XML Process Definition Language 2.00. Technical report, WFMC-TC-1025, Workflow Management Coalition (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mahmud, M., Abdullah, S., Hosain, S.: GWDL: a graphical workflow definition language for business workflows. In: Gaol, F. (ed.) Recent Progress in Data Engineering and Internet Technology. LNEE, vol. 156, pp. 205–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-28807-4_29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Russell, N., Aalst, W.M.P., Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D.: Workflow resource patterns: identification, representation and tool support. In: Pastor, O., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 216–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11431855_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jacob, F., Gray, J., Wynne, A., Liu, Y., Baker, N.: Domain-specific languages for composing signature discovery workflows. In: Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling, pp. 61–64. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Alajrami, S., Romanovsky, A., Watson, P., Roth, A.: Towards cloud-based software process modelling and enactment. In: Model-Driven Engineering on and for the Cloud, CloudMDE 14, vol. 1242, pp. 6–15 (2014)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Martin, D., Wutke, D., Leymann, F.: A novel approach to decentralized workflow enactment. In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing, pp. 127–136. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Johnson, R., Woolf, B.: The type object pattern. In: EuroPLoP (1996)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Atkinson, C.: Meta-modelling for distributed object environments. In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop, pp. 90–101. IEEE (1997)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rivera, J.E., Ruiz Gonzalez, D., Lopez Romero, F., Bautista, J., Vallecillo, A.: Orchestrating ATL model transformations. In: Proceedings of MtATL, vol. 9, pp. 34–46 (2009)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ludäscher, B., Altintas, I., Berkley, C., Higgins, D., Jaeger, E., Jones, M., Lee, E.A., Tao, J., Zhao, Y.: Scientific workflow management and the kepler system: research articles. Concurrency Comput.: Pract. Exp. Workflow Grid Syst. 18, 1039–1065 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C.: Novel features in languages of the epsilon model management platform. In: Modeling in Software Engineering, pp. 69–73. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polac, F.A., Rose, L.M.: Update Transformations in the Small with the Epsilon Wizard Language. J. Object Technol. 6, 53–69 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations