View-centric engineering with synchronized heterogeneous models

Kramer, Max; Bürger, Erik; Langhammer, Michael

doi:10.1145/2489861.2489864

Cited by 46 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Burger [7] propose a mechanism to improve views in OSM [3], in which flexible read-only views can be defined at development time. Kramer et al [19] propose a methodology to create an underlying metamodel from base ones by using structural mappings between metamodel elements. This approach has a mechanism to support extending viewpoints and synchronizing model views with the underlying model.…”

Section: State-of-the-artmentioning

confidence: 99%

EMF Views: A View Mechanism for Integrating Heterogeneous Models

Brunelière

Perez

Wimmer

et al. 2015

Conceptual Modeling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: State-of-the-artmentioning

confidence: 99%

EMF Views: A View Mechanism for Integrating Heterogeneous Models

Brunelière

Perez

Wimmer

et al. 2015

Conceptual Modeling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In this thesis, we present a view-based model-driven software development approach, which is based on the concept of Orthographic Software Modeling (OSM) [7], and which contributes to the VITRUVIUS approach [26,95,104]. The VITRUVIUS approach aims to realise the concept of the Single Underlying Model (SUM) of OSM by combining existing metamodels into a virtual, modular metamodel with information on the synchronisation between these parts.…”

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since there is no restriction on which metamodels can be used in the modular SUM metamodel, the semantic overlap between the metamodels can be of various size. The modelling of these mapping and the checking of consistency constraints is the subject of ongoing research [95], but not in the focus of this dissertation. We will outline the possible methods of specifying these mappings in 4.2.3.…”

Section: A Modular Way Of Defining Single Underlying Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the correspondence between the elements of the different sub-metamodels can be determined automatically, it is possible to describe the mapping using a declarative language, such as the Mapping/Invariant/Response language by Kramer et al [95]. The links between actual elements can then be derived from this declarative definition.…”

Section: Declarative Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The correspondences between the elements listed in Table 7.4 have been implemented in the declarative MIR description language [95]. The mapping rules relate the elements via naming conditions.…”

Section: Implementation Of Correspondencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Flexible views for view-based model-driven development

Bürger¹

2013

Proceedings of the 18th International Doctoral Symposium on Components and Architecture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern software development faces growing size and complexity of the systems that are being developed. To cope with this complexity, several languages and modelling formalisms are used during the development of a system in order to describe it from various view points and at multiple levels of abstraction. These languages and modeling formalisms are specific to the domain of the system under development, to the paradigms that are followed, and to the developer tools being used. For example, in a component-based process, the software architecture may be defined using a component metamodel, while class diagrams are used for the object-oriented design of the system; performance and reliability models express the extra-functional properties; program code in a general-purpose programming language defines the execution semantics, and is used for the implementation of the system. Although all these artefacts follow different concepts and formalisms, they express the same system from various view points and can thus be understood as views on the system under development. The entirety of these views can be identified as a complete definition of the system. Although the usage of multiple formalisms offers the advantage that different developers can describe the system from different view points, and in languages and models that are specially designed for this purpose, it introduces the problem of fragmentation of information across heterogeneous artefacts in different formats, concepts, and languages. With increasing complexity of the systems, this makes navigation through the system description difficult for developers and other roles in the development process. Furthermore, since the concepts and formalisms are managed independently, they can share semantic overlaps, so that a piece of information about the system under i Abstract development can be expressed in several ways and contexts. For example, while a component model may be used to express the prescriptive software architecture of a system, the implementation in a general-purpose programming language also determines an implicit architecture of the system, which leads to redundancies in the system descriptions. The independent evolution of these artefacts can lead to inconsistencies, which cannot be identified automatically if the semantic correspondances between the artefacts are not modelled explicitly.View-based software development processes offer two fundamental principles of adressing this problem: While synthetic approaches integrate the information of heterogeneous models to form a complete system description, projective approaches introduce a common formalism in which all view points of the system can be represented, and generate the views from this central model. While the pure synthetic approach suffers from a quadratic increase of interdependencies between the view types, which become very numerous with a growing number of formalisms that have to be supported, the projective approach faces the problem of providing a common formalism that is ab...

show abstract

Ensuring safe and consistent coengineering of cyber‐physical production systems: A case study

Tröls

Mashkoor

Demuth

et al. 2020

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In today's engineering projects, companies continuously have to adapt their systems to changing customers or dynamic market requirements. This requires a flexible, iterative development process in which different parts of the system under construction are built and updated concurrently. However, concurrent engineering becomes quite challenging in domains where different engineering artifacts from different disciplines come into play, such as safety‐critical cyber‐physical systems, where the involved engineering artifacts are quite heterogeneous in nature. In such systems, it is of utmost importance that different artifacts remain consistent in order to guarantee a correctly functioning end product. In this article, we discuss our experiences (with a leading company working in the areas of production automation and product processing) in maintaining the consistency between electrical models and the corresponding software controller, when both are subject to continuous changes. The article discusses how we let engineers describe the relationships between electrical models and the corresponding software controller code in the form of links and consistency rules. Additionally, we demonstrate that how our approach, through a process of continuous consistency checking, notifies engineers about the erroneous impact of their changes in various engineering artifacts.

show abstract

View-centric engineering with synchronized heterogeneous models

Cited by 46 publications

References 17 publications

EMF Views: A View Mechanism for Integrating Heterogeneous Models

EMF Views: A View Mechanism for Integrating Heterogeneous Models

Flexible views for view-based model-driven development

Ensuring safe and consistent coengineering of cyber‐physical production systems: A case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About