I want to do a model to model transformation, from a model based on Java metamodel to a model based on C++ metamodel.
I did some research and I found that QVT allow a bidirectional transformation but there is two types of QVT and I don't understand the difference between them, who is the more suitable for my project QVTo or QVTr ?
The difference between the two is the nature of the languages, QVTr is declarative and QVTo is imperative. In this particular case, another important factor when taking your decision is current tool support. A mature and stable implementation of QVTo is part of the Eclipse Modeling Project. For QVTr current support is more limited. There is an ongoing development available as part of the Eclipse Modeling Project too.
In the mean time I would recommend you to consider alternatives as such as Epsilon, which does not only provide a transformation language (ETL) but also other languages to work with models. You can find more information about them here: Eclipse MMT Projects
Related
In the expert system D3WEB, it is possible to insert\develop\use Ontology. However, I cannot get the point what's the purpose to introduce ontology in D3WEB?
The nice example on this page, https://www.d3web.de/Wiki.jsp?page=Demo%20-%20Ontology , shows how to develop an ontology in D3WEB. In my opinion, it can be more efficiently developed using Protégé. If the contents shall be changed with a real application, for instance, an ontology about 'dog', in the real application there could be instance dog A, B, C, D. It might be not feasible to 'insert' the instances into the D3WEB knowledge base. However, if the ontology changes over time, how to use the ontology in D3WEB then?
In my opinion, the best way is to develop an ontology outside of D3WEB using Java code. However, I believe the designer of D3WEB would have a nice reason to introduce ontology in D3WEB. I will appreciate it if someone let me know.
This is a somewhat common question we get regarding d3web-KnowWE, one reason might be, that our naming is somewhat misleading. So let me explain.
First there is d3web the java framework to run knowledge bases with strong problem solving knowledge, including rules, decision trees, flow-charts, covering lists, cost-benefit dialog strategies, time based reasoning, and so on. This framework in its core does not provide any GUIs, but is meant to integrate problem solving capabilities in other applications/expert systems. It also does not provide a way to properly create/author the knowledge bases it runs, aside maybe from doing it in the Java code on an API level.
To also provide proper means to author and develop a knowledge base, including some basic dialogs to run, demo, test, and debug the authored knowledge bases, we began working on the wiki system KnowWE, which today is basically a heavily extended JSPWiki. The page d3web.de itself for example is also just a build of KnowWE with specific content.
While we were working on and with KnowWE, we began to really like the approach to edit and author large knowledge bases in this 'wiki way', were you automatically support multiple distributed users to work on the same knowledge base, have automatic versioning, can add nice documentation directly beside the actual formal knowledge, can generate knowledge using script (because it's all just simple text markup), and so forth. Also, the underlying architecture of KnowWE became quite good and mature over the years.
So after some time of this, we found ourselves in the need to also author large ontologies. And yes, Protégé is a nice tool to develop ontologies, but for our use cases, it was just not well suited and we also found it to not scale very well. So we began to implement some simple markups to also allow to also develop ontologies in KnowWE. After then recognizing, that authoring ontologies the 'wiki way' indeed works pretty nicely, we decided to again also share these tools with everybody else on d3web.de. And that is why today you can author/develop both d3web knowledge bases and ontologies in KnowWE, although there is no actual connection/interoperability between both as of now. That would be nice of course and maybe we add this in the future, but for KnowWE is just a development environment for these two knowledge representation.
Maybe you can see KnowWE similar to an IDE like eclipse or IntelliJ, where the same application can be used to develop many different programming languages. KnowWE does the same for different knowledge representations.
A problem is maybe, that historically, we didn't differentiate very well between KnowWE and d3web, because KnowWE was narrowly used to build d3web knowledge bases. We also like to call KnowWE and its distribution package d3web-KnowWE for example. But maybe this should change...
Thanks for pointing this out, I will try to correct/clarify this on d3web.de
I'm working on some beginner programming tutorials and am finding it difficult to keep track of the many modules and functions involved, their purpose (abstractly), and their interrelationships. I'd like to see everything from a bird's-eye view to better envision how I can more elegantly reorganize and refactor the code.
Is there a specialized tool (other than a whiteboard and marker) that professionals use to manage this complexity? Are programmers expected to just rely on mental models? Do professionals use flowchart software like Lucidchart for this kind of thing?
Structure Charts have been around since the mid-70s. Data Flow Diagrams, if you do leaf level -1 only, are useful too for structured (non-OO). If doing non-OO look at the Yourdon Method. Also look at Essential Systems Analysis as the basis for event partitioning. There are various CASE tools still in use.
UML can work well and has been around for many years, if you are doing OO. If one does not go "diagram-happy" then UML can work quite well.
There are ERDs for data relationships.
Graphical modeling tools have never penetrated the general programmer population more than about 18%. I think in part due to lack of proper training for the developers, lack of proper training in managing projects using models for managers and over-promise/under deliver by CASE tool vendors. I started using graphical tools in college - structure charts. I am always amazed at how "professional developers" can write large programs with no visual model of the interrelationships and dependencies.
How do they remember all that? How do they bring new people up to speed when they join the project?
Those of us who ask the questions you ask seem to be in a minority. I don't think it's a "tool-thing." I think some developers want that "higher level of abstraction" and visualization, and some don't.
There's always UML, although I am not a huge fan.
You also didn't tag with what language you are talking about.
For .Net, Visual Studio can actually auto-generate code from such diagrams.
You can also check this similar post on Quora.
I always hear about UML being used in Java projects but never in Ruby ones. Is this just a cultural difference or is there less of a need for modeling in Ruby development because it's part of a more 'agile' culture?
Obviously you can't generalize this to everybody, but programmers in languages like Ruby and Python tend to be less drawn to large design documents and UML because they view their language of choice as being concise and expressive enough that it isn't always necessary. There's a feeling of, "I could spend time and plot all this out in UML...or I could just write some Python that actually implements the design and expresses it in a language I like to read and lots of people can read." Java programs tend to feel "heavier" than their Ruby or Python counterparts — it's part of the design of the language.
Note that I'm not saying this is true of your project or even that it's true at all as a whole — this is just what I've observed about these programming cultures.
Call me crazy but UML isn't for me regardless of the application stack.
(Note, tongue sometimes placed in cheek.)
Probably one of the biggest cultural differences is that Java is often used in projects with large numbers of programmers, led by PHBs, where the high-level system design is done by people with the title "software architect". On these sort of projects the people in the "software architect" role will often generate a large amount of documentation (including UML relationship and state diagrams) during the initial planning phase of the project. These and other documentation artifacts are then expected to be implemented by the hordes of non-architect-programmers.
Ruby on the other hand, is the new hotness and is therefore more often chosen by people who want to program in it. Since the "architect" is the implementer, there is less need for complex upfront documentation. The implementers jot a few notes on general design guidelines and then sit down to program rather than designing upfront for others to program.
This isn't to say that you won't find a few scattered UML diagrams here or there in projects built in Ruby or other snazzy languages -- such as when someone is trying to describe a complex concept -- but such things just aren't needed as much if you are doing the work yourself.
One of the obvious reasons is that well-designed Ruby programs rely heavily on Mixins, which AFAIK simply cannot be modeled in UML at all. I know that Schärli et al developed an extension to UML that can represent Traits which given the close relationship between Traits and Mixins could probably be adapted or just reused for representing Mixins, but then it's not UML anymore.
This is a comment to the answer about mixins. Mixins can actually be modelled in UML quite easily using many different methods. Typically one uses multiple inheritance, interfaces or stereotypes (or any combination of these). Choosing the method depends on the project and personal taste - let us not forget that the main reason for modeling is to conquer complexity, better understand reality and communicate more effectively so each model needs to fit a particular problem and audience. Models are, by definition, pragmatic and so must be the process of creating them.
Let us not forget that UML is extensible using profiles and stereotypes. Such extended UML is still valid UML.
In general, UML is more expressive and less restrictive than programming languages so if something can be written down in some programming language, it can also be done in UML.
I have an idea for a hobby project which performs some code analysis and manipulation. This project will require both the concrete and abstract syntax trees of a given source file. Additionally, bi-directional references between the two trees would be helpful. I would like to avoid the work of transcribing a grammar to construct my own lexer and parser.
Is there a standard format for describing either concrete or abstract syntax trees?
Do any widely-used tool chains support outputting to these formats?
I don't have a particular target programming language in mind. Any popular one will do for a prototype, but I'd prefer one I know well: Python, C#, Javascript, or C/C++.
I'd like the ability to run a source file through a tool or library and get back both trees. In an ideal world, it would be practical to run this tool on code as it is being edited by a user and be tolerant of errors. Again, I am simply trying to develop a prototype, so these requirements are pretty lax.
Thanks!
The research community decided that graph exchange was the right thing to do when moving information from one program analysis tool to another.
See http://www.gupro.de/GXL
More recently, the OMG has defined a standard for interchanging Abstract Syntax Trees.
See http://www.omg.org/spec/ASTM/1.0/Beta1/
This problem seems to get solved over and over again.
There's half a dozen "tool bus" proposals made over the years
that all solved it, with no one ever overtaking the industry.
The problem is that a) it is easy to represent ASTs using
any kind of nestable notation [parentheses like LISP,
like XML, ...] so people roll their own solution easily,
and b) for one tool to exchange an AST with another, they
both have to agree essentially on what the AST nodes mean;
but most ASTs are rather accidentally derived from the particular
grammar/parsing technology used by each tool, and there's
almost always disagreement about that between tools.
So, I've seen very few tools that exchange ASTs meaningfully.
If you're doing a hobby thing, I'd stick with a lisp-like
encoding of trees, where each node has the following format:
( ... )
Its easy to generate, and easy to read.
I work on a professional tool to manipulate programs. If we
have print out the AST, we do the above. Mostly individual
ASTs are far too complicated to look at in practice,
so we hardly ever print out the entire AST, at best only
a node and a few children deep. Our tool doesn't exchange
ASTs with anybody (see above reasons :) but does just
fine building it in memory, doing whizzy things with it
for analysis reasons or transformation reasons, and then
either just deleteing it (no need to send it anywhere)
or regenerating the original language text from the tree.
[The latter means you need anti-parsing or "prettyprinting"
technology]
In our project we defined the AST metamodel in UML and use ANTLR (Java) to populate the model. We also maintain the token information from ANTLR after parsing, but we have not yet tried to update the underlying text-file with modifications made on the model.
This has a hideous overhead (in infrastructure, such as Eclipse UML2/EMF), but our goal is to use high-level tools for Model-based/driven Development (MDD, MDA) anyway, so we decided to use it on each level.
I think one of our students once played with OpenArchitectureWare and managed to get changes from the Eclipse-based, generated editor back into the syntax tree (not related to the UML model above) automatically, but I don't know the details about this.
You might also want to look at ANTLR's tree grammars.
Specific standards are an expectation, while more general purpose standards may also be appropriate. Ira Baxter already mentioned GXL, and RDF may be added too, just that it would require an appropriate ontology and is more oriented toward semantic than syntax. Still may be an option to investigate.
For specific standards, Ira Baxter already mentioned ASTM, another one, although it rather targets a specific kind of programming language (logic languages), is a standard for semantic/conceptual graph, known as ISO‑IEC 24707 2007.
Not a standard on its own, but a paper about that matter: Towards Portable Source Code Representations Using XML
.
I don't know any effectively used standard (in this area, that's always house‑made cooking everywhere), I'm just interested too in this topic.
What tools are available for metamodelling?
Especially for developing diagram editors, at the moment trying out Eclipse GMF
Wondering what other options are out there?
Any comparison available?
Your question is simply too broad for a single answer - due to many aspects.
First, meta-modelling is not a set term, but rather a very fuzzy thing, including modelling models of models and reaching out to terms like MDA.
Second, there are numerous options to developing diagram editors - going the Eclipse way is surely a nice option.
To get you at least started in the Eclipse department:
have a look at MOF, that is architecture for "meta-modelling" from the OMG (the guys, that maintain UML)
from there approach EMOF, a sub set which is supported by the Eclipse Modelling Framework in the incarnation of Ecore.
building something on top of GMF might be indeed a good idea, because that's the way existing diagram editors for the Eclipse platform take (e.g. Omondo's EclipseUML)
there are a lot of tools existing in the Eclipse environment, that can utilize Ecore - I simply hope, that GMF builts on top of Ecore itself.
Dia has an API for this - I was able to fairly trivially frig their UML editor into a basic ER modelling tool by changing the arrow styles. With a DB reversengineering tool I found in sourceforge (took the schema and spat out dia files) you could use this to document databases. While what I did was fairly trivial, the API was quite straightforward and it didn't take me that long to work out how to make the change.
If you're of a mind to try out Smalltalk There used to be a Smalltalk meta-case framework called DOME which does this sort of thing. If you download VisualWorks, DOME is one of the contributed packages.
GMF is a nice example. At the core of this sits EMF/Ecore, like computerkram sais. Ecore is also used for the base of Eclipse's UML2 . The prestige use case and proof of concept for GMF is certainly UML2 Tools.
Although generally a UML tool, I would look at StarUML. It supports additional modules beyond what are already built in. If it doesn't have what you need built in or as a module, I supposed you could make your own, but I don't know how difficult that is.
Meta-modeling is mostly done in Smalltalk.
You might want to take a look at MOOSE (http://moose.unibe.ch). There are a lot of tools being developed for program understanding. Most are Smalltalk based. There is also some java and c++ work.
Two of the most impressive tools are CodeCity and Mondrian. CodeCity can visualize code development over time, Mondrian provides scriptable visualization technology.
And of course there is the classic HotDraw, which is also available in java.
For web development there is also Magritte, providing meta-descriptions for Seaside.
I would strongly recommend you look into DSM (Domain Specific Modeling) as a general topic, meta-modeling is directly related. There are eclipse based tools like GMF that currently require java coding, but integrate nicely with other eclipse tools and UML. However there are two other classes out there.
MetaCase which I will call a pure DSM tool as it focuses on allowing a developer/modeler with out nearly as much coding create a usable graphical model. Additionally it can be easily deployed for others to use. GMF and Microsoft's Beta software factory/DSM tool fall into this category.
Pure Meta-modeling tools which are not intended for DSM tooling, code generation, and the like. I do not follow these tools as closely as I am interested in applications that generate tooling for SMEs, Domain Experts, and others to use and contribute value to an active project not modeling for models sake, or just documentation and theory.
If you want to learn more about number 1, the tooling applications for DSMs/Meta-modeling, then check out my post "DSMForum.org great resources, worth a look." or just navigate directly to the DSMForum.org
In case you are interested in something that is related to modelling and not generation of code, have a look at adoxx.org. As a metamodelling platform it does provide functionalities and mechanisms to quickly develop your own DSL and allows you to focus on the models needs (business requirements, conceptual level design/specification). There is an active community from academia and practice involved developing prototypical as well as commercial application based on the platform. Could be interesting ...