Model Interchange Using OMG Standards

Alanen, Marcus; Porres, Iván

doi:10.1109/euromicro.2005.39

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We therefore looked to XMI for model interchange, and XSLT for XMI transformation. It is already known that these standards are usable as such to implement working XMI filters with a relatively modest effort [2].…”

Section: A Model Driven Engineering Tool Chainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating proprietary and open-source tool chains through horizontal interchange of XMI models

Gustavsson

Lings

Lundell

et al. 2007

2007 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model driven development has several advantages over traditional development, including simplified maintenance. We demonstrate an architecture which, through model driven engineering, allows heterogeneous distributed development of components in a mechatronics application. Key to the approach is an architecture which allows automated and dynamic component integration, together with model sharing through the transformation of XMI files.

show abstract

Section: A Model Driven Engineering Tool Chainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating proprietary and open-source tool chains through horizontal interchange of XMI models

Gustavsson

Lings

Lundell

et al. 2007

2007 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Identified issues are resolved by an implementer who can either be the MIWG (for issues with test cases) or a relevant standard's revision task force (RTF) (for issues with that standard). Notice that the reference model serves as a test oracle [ 14], which is an artifact that determines the expected representation of a model exported from a producer tool when a test case is executed. Once its reference model is ready, execution of a test case starts.…”

Section: Model Interchange Testing Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alanen et al [ 14] performed a simple case study whereby they created a simple class diagram (not focusing on specific features of the modeling language) using six different UML modeling tools. They then exported the diagram to XMI and manually compared, using a text editor, the six generated XMI files.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model Interchange Testing: A Process and a Case Study

Elaasar

Labiche

2012

Modelling Foundations and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modeling standards by the Object Management Group (OMG) enable the interchange of models between tools. In practice, the success of such interchange has been severely limited due to ambiguities and inconsistencies in the standards and lack of rigorous testing of tools' interchange capabilities. This motivated a number of OMG members, including tool vendors and users, to form a Model Interchange Working Group (MIWG) to test and improve model interchange between tools. In this paper, we report on the activities of the MIWG, presenting its testing process and highlighting its design decisions and challenges. We also report on a case study where the MIWG has used its process to test the interchange of UML and SysML models. We make observations, present statistics and discuss lessons learned. We conclude that the MIWG has indeed defined a rigorous, effective and semi-automated process for model interchange testing, which has resulted in more reliable interchange of models between participating tools.

show abstract

“…Different authors have observed that many of the issues that appear when interchanging models in practice between tools are a consequence of different implementations of the UML metamodel by different tools [3,26,31].…”

Section: Why Do We Want Metamodeling Languages Anyway?mentioning

confidence: 99%

A metamodeling language supporting subset and union properties

Alanen

Porres

2007

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we describe successive versions of a metamodeling language using a set-theoretic formalization. We focus on language extension mechanisms, particularly on the relatively new subset and union properties of MOF 2.0 and the UML 2.0 Infrastructure. We use Liskov substitutability as the rationale for our formalization. We also show that property redefinitions are not a safe language extension mechanism. Each language version provides new features, and we note how such features cannot be mixed arbitrarily. Instead, constraints over the metamodel and model structures must be established. We expect that this article provides a better understanding of the foundations of MOF 2.0, which is necessary to define new extensions, model transformation languages and tools.

show abstract

Model Interchange Using OMG Standards

Cited by 6 publications

References 8 publications

Integrating proprietary and open-source tool chains through horizontal interchange of XMI models

Integrating proprietary and open-source tool chains through horizontal interchange of XMI models

Model Interchange Testing: A Process and a Case Study

A metamodeling language supporting subset and union properties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About