Mapping between Levels in the Metamodel Architecture

Abstract

Abstract. The Meta-Modeling Language is a static object-oriented modeling language whose focus is the declarative definition of languages. It aims to enable the UML metamodel to be precisely defined, and to enable UML to evolve into a family of languages. This paper argues that although MML takes a metamodeling approach to language definition, it cannot be described as strict metamodeling. This has significant implications for the nature of the metamodel architecture it supports, yet without contravening the OMG's requirements for the UML 2.0 infrastructure. In particular it supports a rich generic nested architecture as opposed to the linear architecture that strict metamodeling imposes. In this nested architecture, the transformation of any model between its representations at two adjacent metalevels can be described by an information preserving one-to-one mapping. This mapping, which can itself be defined in UML, provides the basis for a powerful area of functionality that any potential metamodeling tool should seek to exploit.

VPM: A visual, precise and multilevel metamodeling framework for describing mathematical domains and UML (The Mathematics of Metamodeling is Metamodeling Mathematics)

“…The majority of metamodeling approaches (including ones that build upon the MOF standard [25]; GME [20], PROGRES [35], BOOM [28], or [21]) considers only a predefined number of metalevels. While only [4] (a framework for MML) and [5] supports multilevel metamodeling. By the dynamic reconfiguration of type-instance relationship between models, VPM provides such a solution that avoids the problem of replication of concepts (from which [4] suffers as identified in [5]).…”

“…While only [4] (a framework for MML) and [5] supports multilevel metamodeling. By the dynamic reconfiguration of type-instance relationship between models, VPM provides such a solution that avoids the problem of replication of concepts (from which [4] suffers as identified in [5]). -VPM has a visual (UML-based) and mathematically precise specification language for dynamic behavior.…”

“…A main advantage of our approach (in contrast to e.g., [4] or the MOF standard itself) is that type-instance relations can be reconfigured dynamically. On one hand, as a model can take the role of a metamodel (thus being simultaneously a model and a metamodel) by altering only the single instance relation between the models, we avoid all the problems of Sect.…”

Inducing Metaassociations and Induced Relationships

“…The problem faced in this article has also drawn the attention of other researchers, who have identified it as an important challenge [15,16,17]. We analyzed these approaches in [8] and found out that none of them was compliant with the MOF 2.0 architecture (thus being non-standard approaches) and some of them suffer from other drawbacks.…”

Metamodeling Languages and Metaprogrammable Tools

“…Specifically, we will provide a technical comparison of three metamodeling languages: MetaGME, Ecore, and Microsoft's Domain Model Definition language. Note that this list is by no means exhaustive; other metamodeling languages not discussed here include the Meta-Modelling Language (MML) [20] and those defined for The eXecutable Metamodeling Facility (XMF) [27]. MetaGME is the native metamodeling language supported by the Generic Modeling Environment (GME) [2], a graphical metaprogrammable modeling tool [4].…”