Advertisement

Model Driven Engineering

  • Stuart Kent
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2335)

Abstract

The Object Management Group’s (OMG) Model Driven Architecture (MDA) strategy envisages a world where models play a more direct role in software production, being amenable to manipulation and transformation by machine. Model Driven Engineering (MDE) is wider in scope than MDA. MDE combines process and analysis with architecture. This article sets out a framework for model driven engineering, which can be used as a point of reference for activity in this area. It proposes an organisation of the modelling ‘space’ and how to locate models in that space. It discusses different kinds of mappings between models. It explains why process and architecture are tightly connected. It discusses the importance and nature of tools. It identifies the need for defining families of languages and transformations, and for developing techniques for generating/configuring tools from such definitions. It concludes with a call to align metamodelling with formal language engineering techniques.

Keywords

Abstract Syntax Object Management Group Model Drive Engineering Model Drive Architecture Meta Object Facility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aspect oriented software design (AOSD) home page. http://www.aosd.net.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Clark A., Evans A., Kent S., Brodsky S., and Cook S. A feasibility study in rearchitecting UML as a family of languages using a precise OO meta-modeling approach. Available from http://www.puml.org, September 2000.
  4. 4.
    J. M. Alvarez, A. Clark, A. Evans, and P. Sammut. An action semantics for MML. In C. Kobryn and M. Gogolla, editors, Proceedings of The Fourth International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language (UML’2001), LNCS. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    OMG Analysis and Design Task Force. UML 2.0 requests for proposals. Available from http://www.omg.org/techprocess/meetings/schedule/, 2001.
  6. 6.
    OMG Analysis and Design Task Force. MOF 2.0 requests for proposals. Available from http://www.omg.org/techprocess/meetings/schedule/, 2002.
  7. 7.
    OMG Analysis and Design Task Force. SPEM final adopted specification. OMG document number ptc/02-01-23, available from [2], 2002.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Clark, A. Evans, and S. Kent. Engineering modelling languages: A precise meta-modelling approach. In Proceedings of ETAPS 02 FASE Conference, LNCS. Springer, April 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. D’Souza and A. Wills. Objects, Components and Frameworks With UML: The Catalysis Approach. Addison-Wesley, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Ehrig, G. Engels, H-J. Kreowski, and G. Rozenberg, editors. Handbook Of Graph Grammars And Computing By Graph Transformation. Volume 2: Applications, Languages and Tools. World Scientific, October 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. Harrison and H. Ossher. Subject-oriented programming (a critique of pure objects). In Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming: Systems, Languages, and Applications, pages 411–428. ACM, September 1993.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heinrich Hussmann, Birgit Demuth, and Frank Finger. Modular architecture for a toolset supporting OCL. In Andy Evans, Stuart Kent, and Bran Selic, editors, UML 2000-The Unified Modeling Language. Advancing the Standard. Third International Conference, York, UK, October 2000, Proceedings, volume 1939 of LNCS, pages 278–293. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Larman. Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design. Prentice Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Lauder. A Productive Response To Legacy System Petrification. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Kent, UK, January 2002.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. Nuseibeh, J. Kramer, and A. Finkelstein. A framework for expressing the relationships between multiple views in requirements specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(10):760773, October 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    OMG Architecture Board ORMSC. Model driven architecture (MDA). OMG document number ormsc/2001-07-01, available from http://www.omg.org, July 2001.
  17. 17.
    Eclipse Project. Home page. http://www.eclipse.org.
  18. 18.
    G. Reggio. Metamodelling behavioural aspects: the case of the UML state machines (complete version). Technical Report DISI-TR-02-3, DISI, Universit di Genova, Italy, 2001.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. Reggio and E. Astesiano. A proposal of a dynamic core for UML metamodelling with MML. Technical Report DISI-TR-01-17, DISI, Universit di Genova, Italy, 2001.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Richters and M. Gogolla. Validating UML models and OCL constraints. In A. Evans and S. Kent, editors, The Third International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language (UML’2000), York, UK, October 2–6. 2000, Proceedings, LNCS. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    2U Submitters. Home page. http://www.2uworks.org.
  22. 22.
    P. Tarr, H. Ossher, W. Harrison, and Jr. S. M. Sutton. N degrees of separation: Multidimensional separation of concerns. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’99), pages 107–119, May 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart Kent
    • 1
  1. 1.University of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations