Lessons learned from real DSL experiments

Abstract

Over the years, our group, led by Bob Balzer, designed and implemented three domain-specific languages for use by outside people in real situations. The first language described the communication format of messages used by NATO to specify command-and-control messages between people and equipment; the processor we generated checked these messages for consistency. The second language was in part graphical, part textual, and was used to demonstrate how naval ship formations were constituted and the constrained movements they could undergo. The last language was a mixture of graphics, text, and declarative information specified using three different COTS products. It was used to describe census survey "instruments," used to collect census data in the field. The code generated was to be installed in the survey takers' laptops.Each of these was actually a prototype for what would have taken more time to engineer and polish before putting into practice. Although each effort was essentially successful, none of the languages was ever followed up with the subsequent engineering efforts that we expected or at least hoped for. The first two were demonstrated and reviewed informally. The last effort was more seriously reviewed, in that training sessions and a formal review process were undertaken to evaluate the potential effectiveness of the product. Herein I elaborate where these language efforts succeeded and where they failed, gleaning lessons for others who take the somewhat risky step of committing to develop a DSL for a particular user community.

A systematic approach to evaluating domain-specific modeling language environments for multi-agent systems

“…Although there are some textbooks (Abran 2010) and papers (Basili et al 1999;Carver et al 2010;Bayona-Oré et al 2014) for evaluation of the software systems in general, the studies which evaluate DSMLs are rare (Marin et al 2010). Taking into account general DSL studies with including an evaluation, for instance, in Wile (2004), the author describes experiences and lessons learned (successes and failures) from employing three real DSLs during 10 years. These DSLs are ''Military Message Experiment (MME),'' ''Replenishment at Sea (RAS),'' and ''Survey Instrument Creator (SIC).''…”

“…Considering these effects they offer some criteria to assess and select DSML (for end users). Work given in both Wile (2004) and Kahlaoui et al (2008) guide our work in determination of some of the assessment criteria and use of some DSML success factors as previously discussed in Sects. 3 and 6, respectively.…”

“…Inspiring mainly from the study in Wile (2004), the authors of Kahlaoui et al (2008) propose some success factors for DSMLs and their assessment criteria. The success factors are considered for DSML developers, and assessment criteria (for quality) are considered for DSML users.…”

“…The evaluation framework introduced in this paper benefited from the outcomes of many of the previous DS(M)L evaluation efforts (e.g., Wile 2004;Kahlaoui et al 2008;Tekinerdogan et al 2011;Kosar et al 2012;Kahraman and Bilgen 2013) during the derivation of criteria and the application of the framework (as indicated in the various sections of this paper). However, just straightforward application of those approaches or assessment based on some sort of synthesis of their features without considering the MAS specifications would expose drawbacks and inefficiency due to the unordinary, distributive and complex nature of systems based on software agents.…”

“…They provide a list of success factors and a technique to convert them into assessment criteria. The success factors are considered from using three different perspectives: Quality of Models, Quality of Modeling Languages (Bobkowska 2005;Paige et al 2000), and DSML design experiences (Wile 2004). Twelve success factors have been identified by combining the results of work carried out in the three dimensions described previously.…”