A Mapping Language from Models to DI Diagrams

Alanen, Marcus; Lundkvist, Torbjörn; Porres, Iván

doi:10.1007/11880240_32

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Alanen et al define in [21] the special purpose transformation language DIML, which can render models written in an arbitrary modeling language into the representation language Diagram Interchange [7]. However, DIML-transformations are strictly less expressive than our concrete syntax definitions since they map each model to a unique representations and sacrifice-by doing so-presentation options.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correctly defined concrete syntax

Baar

2008

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to their complexity, the syntax of modern modeling languages is preferably defined in two steps. The abstract syntax identifies all modeling concepts whereas the concrete syntax should clarify how these concepts are rendered by graphical and/or textual elements. While the abstract syntax is often defined in form of a metamodel, there does not exist such standard format yet for concrete syntax definitions. The diversity of definition formats-ranging from EBNF grammars to informal text-is becoming a major obstacle for advances in modeling language engineering, including the automatic generation of editors. In this paper, we propose a uniform format for concrete syntax definitions. Our approach captures both textual and graphical model representations and even allows to assign more than one rendering to the same modeling concept. Consequently, following our approach, a model can have multiple, fully equivalent representations, but-in order to avoid ambiguities when reading a model representation-two different models should always have distinguishable representations. We call a syntax definition correct, if all well-formed models are represented in a non-ambiguous way. As the main contribution of this paper, we present a rigorous analysis technique to check the correctness of concrete syntax definitions.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%