Advertisement

Diagram Definition: A Case Study with the UML Class Diagram

  • Maged Elaasar
  • Yvan Labiche
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6981)

Abstract

The abstract syntax of a graphical modeling language is typically defined with a metamodel while its concrete syntax (diagram) is informally defined with text and figures. Recently, the Object Management Group (OMG) released a beta specification, called Diagram Definition (DD), to formally define both the interchange syntax and the graphical syntax of diagrams. In this paper, we validate DD by using it to define a subset of the UML class diagram. Specifically, we define the interchange syntax with a MOF-based metamodel and the graphical syntax with a QVT mapping to a graphics metamodel. We then run an experiment where we interchange and render an example diagram. We highlight various design decisions and discuss challenges of using DD in practice. Finally, we conclude that DD is a sound approach for formally defining diagrams that is expected to facilitate the interchange and the consistent rendering of diagrams between tools.

Keywords

Diagram Definition Model MOF UML QVT DD SVG 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Unified Modeling Language (UML), Superstructure v2.4. ptc/2010-11-14 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) v2.0, dtc/2010-06-05 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core v2.4. OMG ptc/2010-12-08 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    MOF 2 XMI Mapping v2.4. OMG ptc/2010-12-06 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Diagram Definition Request for Proposal ad/2007-09-02 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diagram Definition v1.0 FTF Beta 1. ptc/2010-12-18 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Booch, G.: Handbook of Software Architecture, http://handbookofsoftwarearchitecture.com
  9. 9.
    Query/View/Transformation (QVT) v1.0. OMG formal/2008-04-03 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Unified Modeling Language (UML), Infrastructure v2.4. OMG ptc/2010-11-03 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Object Constraint Language (OCL) v2.2. OMG formal/2010-02-01 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dvorak, R.: Model Transformation with Operational QVT – M2M component, http://www.eclipse.org/m2m/qvto/doc/M2M-QVTO.pdf
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Paternostro, M., Merks, E.: EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework, 2nd edn (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graphical Modeling Framework (GMF), http://www.eclipse.org/gmf/
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.1, http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/
  18. 18.
    Diagram Interchange v1.0. formal/06-04-04 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    XML Process Definition Language (XPDL), http://www.wfmc.org/xpdl.html
  21. 21.
    Palies, J.: ATL Transformation Example: UMLDI to SVG (2005), http://www.eclipse.org/m2m/atl/atlTransformations/UMLDI2SVG/UMLDI2SVG0.04.pdf
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Systems Modeling Language (SysML), v1.2. formal/2010-06-02 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Balasubramanian, D., Narayanan, A., Buskirk, C., Karsai, G.: The Graph Rewriting and Transformation Language: GReAT. Electronic Comm. of the EASST 1, 1–8 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maged Elaasar
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yvan Labiche
    • 2
  1. 1.IBM Canada Ltd., Rational Software, Ottawa LabKanataCanada
  2. 2.Department of Systems and Computer EngineeringCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations