Integrating Graphical and Textual Modelling Languages

Integrating Graphical and Textual Modelling Languages

Luc Engelen and Mark van den Brand

Integrating Metamodel-based and Grammar-based Modelling Languages

Luc Engelen and Mark van den Brand

/ Software Engineering and Technology PAGE 329-3-2009

Overview

1. Problem description2. Two approaches3. Two implementations4. Case study5. Advanced applications6. Conclusions


Problem description


Extract (M2T) Convert and transform (T2M) Merge (M2M)

Two approaches

= XMI-representation of model

= Metamodel-based model fragment = Metamodel-based model

= Grammar-based model fragment

Interpret as XMI Rewrite (T2T) Interpret as ‘model’


• Embedding in a custom language

SendSignalStatement: String

Embedding a textual language

Statement

Assignment MethodCall Textual

• Embedding the UML


Modelware approach

• Extracting textual fragments

• Merging models andfragments of models


Modelware approach

• Convert and transform

LS ::= S { “;” S } S ::= “stat”

LS

S CFsourcetarget


Modelware approach


LS ::= S { “;” S } S ::= “stat”

LS

S CFsourcetarget

stat; stat; stat s: S s: S s: S

list: LS

f:CF f:CF


Modelware approach


LS ::= S { “;” S } S ::= “stat”

LS

S CFsourcetarget

stat; stat; stats: S s: S s: S

list: LS


Modelware approach


LS ::= S { “;” S } S ::= “stat”

stat; stat; stats: S s: S s: S

list: LS

s: S

LS

S

s: S s: S

list: LST2M M2M

LS

S CFsourcetarget


Grammarware approach

• Rewriting

<packagedElement xmi:type="uml:Class" xmi:id="_id1" name="A"> <ownedAttribute xmi:id="_id2" name="a" type="_id3"/> <ownedOperation xmi:id="_id4" name="n" method="_id5"> </ownedOperation> <ownedBehavior xmi:type=“uml::OpaqueBehavior" xmi:id=“_id6"> <body>behavior{ a := n(a) }</body> </ownedBehavior></packagedElement>

Class2Id[(A, _id1), …]Attribute2Id[(A, a, _id2, _id3), …]Operation2Id[A, n, _id4), …]

• Textual fragments use names, XMI uses Identifiers


Grammarware approach

T( A “:=” B ) → <effect xsi:type = “slco:AssignmentStatement”/> T(B) T(A) </effect>T( “false” ) → <expression xsi:type=“slco:BooleanConstantExpression” value=“false”/>


Two implementations

• Modelware• Xpand for T2M• Xtext for M2T• Xtend for M2MAll from the openArchitectureWare platform for eclipse

• Grammarware• SDF for the grammars

− XMI grammar off the shelf− Custom grammars for the fragments

• ASF for the T2T transformation


Case study


Case study


Observations

• Modelling in eclipse• Diagrams• Simple textual models• Structure editing

• Our approaches add• Embedding of textual fragments in metamodel based models

• Modelware• Restricted to LL(*) grammar• Straightforward mapping from grammar to metamodel

• Grammarware• Forces switching between environments• Deals with plain XMI

− Tool-specific− Low level of abstraction


Advanced applications

<packagedElement xmi:type="uml:Class" xmi:id="_id1" name="A"> <ownedAttribute xmi:id="_id2" name="a" type="_id3"/> <ownedOperation xmi:id="_id4" name="n" method="_id5"> </ownedOperation> <ownedBehavior xmi:type=“uml::OpaqueBehavior" xmi:id=“_id6"> <body>behavior{ a := m(a) }</body> </ownedBehavior></packagedElement>

Method “m” not found in class “A”


Conclusions

• Embedding grammar-based languages in metamodel-based languages• Two approaches

− Modelware− Grammarware

• Two implementations• Case study: textual alternative for UML activity

diagrams


Conclusions

• Grammarware approach and implementation• Flexible grammar definitions• Dealing with XMI

• Modelware approach and implementation• Only one modelling environment• Conversion and transformation in two steps

Integrating Graphical and Textual Modelling Languages

Documents

model software engineering

uml software engineering

cf software engineering

steps software engineering

metamodelbased model

textual alternative

textual languageembedding

metamodel grammarwareforces