A Systematic Approach to Connectors in a Multi-level Modeling Environment

  • Matthias Gutheil
  • Bastian Kennel
  • Colin Atkinson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5301)

Abstract

The advantage of supporting a uniform modeling approach across multiple, logical (or ontological) instantiation levels has been well documented in the literature. However, the published approaches for achieving this have focused on making it possible for classes and objects to be treated uniformly across multiple instantiation levels, but have neglected the problems involved in doing the same thing for “connectors” (i.e. concepts rendered as edges in graph based depiction of models rather than nodes). On closer examination, this turns out to be a significant problem, because without an effective strategy for modeling connectors in a uniform way, multi-level modeling as a whole is not possible. In this paper we describe the problems arising from the way in which connectors (e.g. associations, links, generalizations etc.) are currently supported in mainstream modeling languages such as the UML and why they are incompatible with multi-level modeling. We then define three fundamental connector rendering and representation principles that rectify the identified problems.

Keywords

Metamodeling Multi-Level Modeling Connector Association 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Álvarez, J.M., Evans, A., Sammut, P.: MML and the Metamodel Architecture. In: Workshop on Transformations in UML (WTUML 2001) (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Concepts for Comparing Modeling Tool Architectures. In: ACM/IEEE 8th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MoDELS / UML 2005, Montego Bay, Jamaica, October 2–7 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Model-Driven Development: A Metamodeling Foundation. IEEE Software (September/October 2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Rearchitecting the UML Infrastructure. ACM journal Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation 12(4) (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Reducing accidental complexity in domain models. Software and Systems Modeling (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bézivin, J., Lemesle, R.: ntology-Based Layered Semantics for Precise OA&D Modeling. In: Proceedings of the Workshops on Object-Oriented Technology, June 09-13, pp. 151–154 (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gašević, D., Kaviani, N., Hatala, M.: On Metamodeling in Megamodels. In: Duval, E., Klamma, R., Wolpers, M. (eds.) EC-TEL 2007. LNCS, vol. 4753, pp. 91–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gogolla, M., Favre, J.-M., Büttner, F.: On Squeezing M0, M1, M2, and M3 into a Single Object Diagram. In: Proc. MoDELS 2005 Workshop Tool Support for OCL and Related Formalisms (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A powertype-based metamodelling framework. Software and System Modeling 5(1), 72–90 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Graphical Modeling Framework (2008), http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/gmf
  12. 12.
    Jarke, M., Gallersdörfer, R., Jeusfeld, M.A., Staudt, M., Eherer, S.: ConceptBase - a deductive object base for meta data management. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, Special Issue on Advances in Deductive Object-Oriented Databases 4(2), 167–192 (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Korthaus, A., Gitzel, R.: The Role of Metamodeling in Model-Driven Development. In: Proceedings of the 8th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (SCI 2004), Orlando, Florida, USA, July 18-21, 2004. Information Systems, Technologies and Applications: I, IIIS, vol. IV (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kühne, T., Schreiber, D.: Can Programming be Liberated from the Two-Level Style? — Multi-Level Programming with DeepJava. In: ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications: OOPSLA 2007, Montréal, Canada, October 21–25 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    MetaEdit+ Tool (2008), http://www.metacase.com
  16. 16.
    No Magic Inc., MagicDraw Tool, http://www.magicdraw.com/
  17. 17.
    OMG UML 2.1.2 Infrastructure Specification, Object Management Group (OMG), Tech. Rep. (November 2007) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    OMG UML 2.1.2 Superstructure Specification, Object Management Group (OMG), Tech. Rep. (November 2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Gutheil
    • 1
  • Bastian Kennel
    • 1
  • Colin Atkinson
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of Software TechnologyUniversity MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations