Model-driven Development of Multi-View Modelling Tools

The MUVIEMOT Approach

Domenik Bork and Dimitris Karagiannis

Research Group Knowledge Engineering, University of Vienna, Währinger Street 29, 1090 Vienna, Austria

Keywords: Multi-View Modelling, Meta Modelling, Modelling Tools, Model-driven Development, MUVIEMOT,

ADOxx.

Abstract: As the complexity of modern computer and enterprise systems is ever increasing due to emerging

technologies and the need to integrate different systems, modelling tools, designed to encourage modellers

in creating models according to the complex reality are of rising importance. Multi-view modelling methods

(MVMM) can cope with this complexity by providing visualization, decomposition, and specialization

functionality. The creation of a model is decomposed into the creation of several views and integrating them

in order to derive the whole model of the system. Keeping the multiple views consistent and providing

suitable visualization means is vital for applicability and usability of MVMMs. By contrast, when designing

such tools, one is forced to adopt conventional software engineering approaches. The paper at hand tries to

contribute filling that research gap by introducing a model-driven approach, tailored to the specifics of

designing multi-view modelling tools. A prototypical implementation of the approach enables automatic

generation of modelling tools for MVMM using the ADOxx meta modelling platform.

1 INTRODUCTION

Modelling of enterprise systems and information

systems is of increasing complexity due to emerging

technologies and standards, increasing heterogeneity

and globalization, and the different stakeholders

involved in creating or processing of the models.

Multi-view modelling methods (MVMM) help to

cope with this complexity by dividing the modelled

system into multiple views. Each view considers

only certain aspects of the system thereby utilizing a

certain perspective on it (Bork and Sinz, 2013). The

views use the abstraction level and concepts most

suitable to map the aspects of the subarea considered

by the view onto the model. Consequently, aspects

not considered by the view are ignored.

An example from the enterprise modelling

domain should help to introduce a common

understanding: In enterprise modelling, structural,

behavioural, technical and organizational aspects are

most commonly present. These aspects are modelled

using specialized views. Integrating these views

manually into one comprehensive model is likely to

overwhelm the modeller. This not only holds for

analysis of the model, it also covers the process of

creating valid models. Most enterprise modelling

methods (e.g., ARIS, MEMO, SOM) therefore

divide the model into several, interrelated, partial

views. Each view is specified by a viewpoint which

depicts the concepts considered by the view and the

rules for combining them. The relationship between

view and viewpoint is analogous to the relationship

between model and meta model.

Using such specialized views enables two major

benefits: First, the viewpoints can utilize several

abstraction and visualisation levels, thereby

fostering analysis and understanding of the model.

Second, the concepts of the viewpoint can be aligned

to the domain or stakeholder, the view is designed

for – cf. the benefits of domain-specific modelling

languages (DSMLs).

However, due to the unifying character of the

viewpoints, correspondences between the different

views are inherently given. The adequate definition

and handling of these correspondences and the

anticipation of inconsistencies adhering from them is

vital for the efficient application of MVMMs.

Specifying these correspondences in a formalised

and machine-processable manner is one of the major

research issues in the currently emphasized research

field of developing multi-view modelling tools

(Frank et al. 2014). Formalisation enables not only

Karagiannis D. and Bork D.

Model-Driven Development of Multi-View Modelling Tools: The MUVIEMOT Approach.

DOI: 10.5220/0006811900010001

In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Paradigm Trends (ICSOFT 2014), pages 11-23

ISBN: 978-989-758-037-6

machine-processing but also intersubjective

understanding of the specification (Bork and Fill,

2014). Following our introductory example from the

enterprise modelling domain, a behavioural

viewpoint (e.g., for business processes) has relations

to the technical and organizational viewpoints (e.g.,

machines and personnel for the execution of certain

tasks defined in the business process). The

breakdown of a machine is normally captured in the

technical view. However, it is obvious that in case of

a machine breakdown, business process tasks

performed with this machine cannot be performed

until the machine is repaired. Such correspondences

between views do not only effect the operation of

enterprises but also their planning and analysis.

The development of consistency-preserving

multi-view modelling tools is therefore a key factor

for utility and efficiency of MVMM. Currently, this

task is conceptually and technically prominently

supported by meta modelling and meta modelling-

based tool development platforms like ADOxx (Fill

and Karagiannis 2013), Eclipse Modelling

Framework, or MetaEdit+ (Tolvanen and Rossi,

2003). These platforms share the generic steps to be

undertaken in order to create a modelling tool.

However, such platforms concentrate on the late

development steps, i.e., the implementation of

modelling tools. Specifying the requirements and the

functionality is still left to the cognitive capabilities

of method engineers. This is even more a

shortcoming when thinking of the specifics of

MVMMs. There is a significant lack of support

when it comes to the design of multi-view modelling

tools (Bork and Sinz, 2013).

The paper at hand aims to reduce this deficit by

introducing a set of domain-specific modelling

languages (DSMLs) for the model-driven

specification of requirements for multi-view

modelling tools. The DSMLs and a procedural

approach defining their application is in the

following referred to as M

UVIEMOT. An

implementation of the approach on the ADOxx meta

modelling platform moreover allows the automatic

transformation of the models into modelling tool

implementations. The paper describes M

UVIEMOT

and illustrates its feasibility using a case study from

the enterprise modelling domain.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows:

Section 2 describes the components of modelling

methods and uses these components to further

specify multi-view modelling methods. A brief

introduction to the development of modelling tools

concludes the foundations. In Section 3, the DSMLs

for the specification of multi-view modelling tools

are introduced. The model-driven engineering of

multi-view modelling tools with M

UVIEMOT is then

described in Section 4. A case study, follows in

Section 5. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper and

gives some ideas for further research.

2 FOUNDATIONS

This section outlines the foundations of modelling

methods. Subsequently, the specifics of a multi-view

modelling method are contrasted. Finally, Section

2.3 briefly describes current development

approaches, emphasizing on their inappropriateness

for the development of multi-view modelling

methods.

2.1 Modelling Methods and Meta

Modelling

Due to the increasing complexity of today's

enterprises and the software systems determining

their ability to compete in a global market, models

play a vital role. Models not only help to cope with

the complexity by providing structuring, analysis

and further processing qualities. They are also used

as primary tool for the development of the software

systems, e.g., by following a model-driven

development (MDD) approach.

A modelling method, according to (Karagiannis

and Kühn, 2002) is composed of three major parts:

(1) a Modelling Language, (2) a Modelling

Procedure, and (3) Mechanisms & Algorithms.

Figure 1 illustrates the components of a modelling

method by means of an UML class diagram.

A Modelling Language defines the elements of

the modelling method and the rules for combining

them. For every element, semantics defining their

meaning, and notation, defining their graphical

visualization need to be specified.

The Modelling Procedure then uses the specified

modelling language and defines the steps and results

while actually creating valid models by a modeller.

The combination of the modelling language and the

modelling procedure is referred to as the Modelling

Technique.

Mechanisms & Algorithms "provide the

functionality to use and evaluate the models built by

using the modelling language" (Karagiannis and

Kühn, 2002, p. 4). According to the meta model

level the mechanisms are specified on, three

different classes of mechanisms can be identified.

Generic mechanisms are specified on the meta meta

model. They can therefore be applied on every meta

Figure 1: Components of modelling methods (Karagiannis and Kühn 2002).

model defined using the concepts of the meta meta

model. Specific mechanisms on the other side are

implemented using the concepts of a certain meta

model. Finally, Hybrid mechanisms are defined on

the meta meta model but they can be adopted or

parameterized using the specific concepts of the

meta model, e.g. customization of pre-defined

analysis queries.

Based on the definitions of modelling methods,

we now describe our understanding of meta models

and meta modelling. In contrast to modelling, where

the application of a modelling method is centred, i.e.

the creation of a model as an instance according to a

meta model, meta modelling is concerned with the

formalized specification of a modelling method.

This specification covers all components of Figure

In this context, meta models are generally

referred to as "a model used to model modelling

itself" (Fill and Karagiannis, 2013, p. 6f). In more

detail, a meta model defines the abstract syntax of a

modelling language (Harel and Rumpe, 2000; Harel

and Rumpe, 2004; Sprinkle and Rumpe, 2010).

Accordingly, meta meta models then define the

language that is used to describe this abstract syntax.

Whereas in some approaches separate meta models

are used for distinct domains, e.g. in the area of

model transformation by using meta models for

software engineering and meta models for database

modelling (Romeikat et al., 2008), other approaches

use integrated views on one meta model whereby

domains are distinguished by using different model

types (Fill et al., 2012). These model types can be

referred as viewpoints on the model.

2.2 Multi-View Modelling Methods

During the design and analysis of complex informa-

tion systems (e.g., enterprise information systems,

knowledge systems) multiple aspects need to be

taken into account simultaneously (Alter, 2008).

This includes information about the subject, usage,

systems, and development world of these systems.

By reverting to multi-view modelling approaches,

multiple structural and behavioural aspects can be

represented using different, inter-connected

modelling languages (i.e., viewpoints). Historically,

the multi-view modelling approach can be aligned to

the database engineering domain. In relational

databases, a view is a non-materialized subset of the

attributes of a database table, derived by a projection

or selection operator. Over the last decades,

MVMMs have been successfully applied in different

domains like requirements engineering (Finkelstein

and Fuks, 1989; Finkelstein et al., 1992),

architecture management (Kruchten, 1995), software

modelling (Dijkman et al., 2008; Nassar, 2003), or

software development (Mili et al., 1999) A more

comprehensive overview on the application domains

of viewpoint modelling can be seen in (Kheir et al.,

2013).

Multi-view modelling methods help to cope with

the complex reality by providing specialized

viewpoints. Each view is focusing only on certain

aspects of the reality, therefore enabling a

highlighting of the considered aspects by explicitly

omitting other aspects. The combination of the

views gives the whole model of the system. As a

consequence of the interrelated views,

correspondences need to be specified in order to

prevent inconsistencies (cf. the discussions on the

view-update problem in database engineering

(Carlson and Arora, 1979; Dayal and Bernstein,

1978; Dayal and Bernstein, 1982; Lechtenbörger,

2003).

Generally, two oppositional categories of multi-

view modelling methods can be identified: selective

and projective multi-view modelling (Cicchetti et al.,

2011):

 Selective: Each viewpoint is implemented as a

distinct meta model and the overall system is

obtained as synthesis of the information carried

by the different viewpoints.

 Projective: Modellers are provided with virtual

views made up of selected concepts coming

from a single base meta model by hiding

details not relevant for the particular viewpoint.

From a meta modelling perspective the two

categories can also be classified by either providing

the combination of several loosely coupled meta

models (i.e., selective MVM), or by the availability

of one single, integrated meta model the views are

derived from by a projection operator (i.e.,

projective MVM). Whereas the integrated meta

model of the former category already defines some

of the consistency constraints a supporting

modelling tool should respect, the second category

abandons the specification of all consistency

constraints to the method engineer. Multi-

Perspective Enterprise Modelling (MEMO) (Frank,

1994) and the Semantic Object Model (SOM) (Ferstl

and Sinz, 2013) are two modelling methods from the

enterprise modelling domain adopting the projective

approach, whereas the Orthographic Software

Modelling (OSM) approach creates a single-

underlying model (SUM) for a set of loosely coupled

meta models (Atkinson et al., 2013) in the software

engineering domain.

Multi-view modelling methods do not only

require specific thoughts considering the definition

and integration of the views, i.e., the specification of

the multi-view modelling language by means of a

combination of meta models. They also effect the

specification of the other two major components of

modelling methods, the modelling procedure and the

mechanisms & algorithms.

The actions a modeller can perform must be

specifically aligned to the characteristics of

MVMMs. For each modelling action, it should be

decided in which viewpoints they can be triggered

and on which viewpoints the execution of an action

has an effect on. Bork and Sinz proposed two

categories of performing multi-view modelling,

referred to as multi-view modelling principles:

system-oriented and diagram-oriented multi-view

modelling (cf. Bork and Sinz, 2013). In the former

case, an operator is applied to a specific diagram or

to the model itself. Its effects can be seen in all

corresponding diagrams" (Bork and Sinz, 2013).

The modelling tool automatically ensures a

consistent model state for all views automatically. In

order to do this, all correspondences between the

viewpoints must be specified formally. In the latter

case, "editing of a model is done by applying an

operator to a single diagram. The effects of the

operator can only be seen in the diagram" (Bork and

Sinz, 2013). The modelling tool explicitly allows

temporarily inconsistencies between the views, i.e.,

due to usability. The modeller must perform

additional actions in related views in order to obtain

a consistent model state for all views. Figure 2

illustrates the dependencies between views in a

multi-view modelling setting.

Figure 2: View dependencies in multi-view modelling.

Figure 2 illustrates the interplay of viewpoints,

correspondences, and meta models using a

conceptual model (the visualization is an analogy to

the view-update problem, described in relational

databases in the late 1980s (Keller, 1985).

Compared to models, which are instances of a

meta model, the constituents of a view are specified

by a Viewpoint (VP). View v

is an instantiation of

the Viewpoint VP

, View v

is of type VP

. The

application of an operator (Op) on v

transforms

view v

into a new model state, referred to as v

'. A

modelling tool supporting system-oriented multi-

view modelling should provide a transformation of

operator Op (T(Op)) that can be applied on view v

transforming the view into the new state v

'. The

overall goal of a consistency-preserving multi-view

modelling tool is highlighted by the dotted lines be-

tween v

and v

, and v

' and v

', respectively. These

lines indicate a semantic consistency relationship

between the views, i.e., the information covered in

the views does not contradict each other.

Considering mechanisms & algorithms of a

multi-view modelling method, additional thoughts

must be given e.g., to the view-specific visualization

of concepts that are included in several viewpoints.

A tool development environment should provide the

possibility to define a view-dependent visualization

in order to visualize the concepts most appropriately

to the semantic domain the viewpoint is defined for.

2.3 Development of Modelling Tools

Although the benefits of using modelling methods

are clearly documented in the research community,

methodical support in the early phases of modelling

tool development is rarely given.

Currently, the support of a method engineer,

trying to implement a modelling tool supporting his

or her method, is basically the technical

specification of tool development environments. The

development of modelling tools is, up to now, seen

as a special kind of conventional software

engineering. Meta modelling platforms have enabled

a more sufficient support in the late development

steps, however, they lack at support for the

requirements engineering and conception of

modelling tools.

Traditional software development procedure

models like the Waterfall Model (Benington, 1983)

or the newer approaches subsumed under the term

agile software development however cannot consider

the specifics of MVMM appropriately. Due to the

even more challenging characteristics of multi-view

modelling methods (cf. Section 2.2) the gap in

methodical support is even more serious.

UVIEMOT, proposed in the following Section, and

the underlying methodical approach contribute to

close that research gap.

The concepts of meta models and meta

modelling do not only provide abstraction

mechanisms for human beings, they are also

commonly used as conceptual foundation for tool

development platforms. Such platforms often

provide a fixed meta meta model (Sprinkle et al.,

2010). Tool developers then integrate the meta

model of their modelling method by using the

concepts provided in the platform's meta meta

model. The platform generates the visual graphical

editor based on the meta model and the notation

defined for its elements. This enables modellers to

create models according to the meta model.

The ADOxx meta modelling platform follows

the same procedure. ADOxx has emerged from

Adonis, a business process management tool which

is in commercial use until now. A free of use version

of ADOxx is available for academic purposes. This

version can be used to easily develop a graphical

modelling tool using the meta modelling concept.

Figure 3 illustrates the roles and languages of the

ADOxx meta modelling hierarchy.

Figure 3: Roles and languages of the ADOxx meta

modelling hierarchy (Fill and Karagiannis, 2013).

On top of the hierarchy is the ADOxx meta meta

model which is created by the ADOxx developers

and implemented using the programming language

C++. As an instance of this meta meta model, the

ADOxx meta model has been created. This meta

model can be used by meta modellers to create their

own meta model. The creation is performed by

mapping the user-specific meta model elements to

the elements provided within the ADOxx meta

model. The resulting meta model is described in the

ADOxx Library Language (ALL), a platform-

specific language for describing meta models using

the concepts of the ADOxx meta meta model.

Finally, the modeller can create instances of the

user-specific meta model, i.e. create actual models.

These models can be described using the pre-defined

standard export formats XML or ADL. Adonis

Description Language (ADL) is a ADOxx-specific

XML format.

The mapping of the concepts between the user-

specific meta model and the ADOxx meta model is

now explained in more detail. Central concepts of an

ADOxx library are Modeltypes, Modelling Classes,

Relation Classes, and Attributes (cf. Junginger et al.,

2000). Modelling and Relation Classes are

composed of attributes. Some of them are already

mandatory by the platform, e.g. the GraphRep

attribute for the definition of the graphical

representation or the AttrRep attribute for the

visualization of an object's attributes by means of an

ADOxx Notebook. Other attributes can be

introduced by the method engineer. For each

Relation Class from and to which Modelling Classes

the relation can be modelled must be specified. A

modeltype in ADOxx delimits which Modelling

Classes and Relation Classes should be included

within a certain model in the ADOxx Modelling

Toolkit.

3 MUVIEMOT: A DSML FOR

MULTI-VIEW MODELLING

TOOLS

Domain-specific languages (DSLs) enable the

declaration of concepts that describe the intended

usage most appropriately. The resulting language is

precisely tailored to a certain domain, fulfilling a

pre-defined purpose. By definition, this is something

general-purpose languages cannot provide. DSLs are

widely used in software development projects in a

diverse set of domains.

Following the definition of DSL, a domain-

specific modelling language (DSML) can be defined

as "a modelling language that is intended to be used

in a certain domain of discourse. It enriches generic

modelling concepts with concepts that were

reconstructed from technical terms used in the

respective domain of discourse. A DSML serves to

create conceptual models of the domain, it is related

to" (Frank, 2010, p. 4). Moreover, DSMLs enable

the model-driven development of systems by

providing a higher abstraction level (Tolvanen,

2005).

3.1 Requirements on a DSML for

Multi-View Modelling Methods

Before we describe the MUVIEMOT approach, we

first briefly discuss some requirements a

requirements modelling for multi-view modelling

methods should adhere. From a functional point of

view, a DSML for MVMM should be able to capture

all facets of the methods. This includes the meta

models, the viewpoint definitions, the consistency

constraints, and the visualization of the views.

Moreover, an emphasis of the DSML should be on

defining the modelling procedure of the MVMM as

actions performed by the modeller on a certain view

(or a set of views) and the effects of these actions

(cf. Figure 2).

Visualization mechanisms play an important role

for conventional modelling methods. This all the

more holds for MVMM, as concepts may be

included in different views using different

visualization paradigms and notations.

From a non-functional perspective, the DSML

should follow its originating purpose, i.e. provision

of an abstraction level and concepts that are strongly

aligned to the domain. In the case of the

UVIEMOT approach, it is important, to use the

concepts provided with the foundations of

modelling, meta modelling and multi-view

modelling. Classical non-functional requirements

like usability, scalability, and robustness should be

also considered.

3.2 Designing Multi-View Modelling

Tools with MUVIEMOT

The aim of M

UVIEMOT is to increase the efficiency

of meta model based specification and model-driven

development of multi-view modelling tools by

providing a more suitable level of abstraction. This

abstraction level enables the specification of the

MVMM in a more efficient way due to the provided

modelling concepts who are strictly aligned to the

domain and the needs of method engineers. Central

models of the DSML focus on the overall setting of

the MVMM, the use cases of applying the MVMM

tool, and the consistency issues a tool developer

should consider during implementation of the tool.

Therefore, the models help to gather all

requirements of a multi-view modelling tool

In the following, the phases of the procedural

approach, the DSML is based on, are described

generally (cf. Bork and Sinz, 2013). Afterwards the

realization of the phases in a supporting modelling

tool is described. The M

UVIEMOT tool is

implemented on the ADOxx meta modelling

platform using the facilities of the Open Models

Initiative (Karagiannis et al., 2008) laboratory

(OMiLAB). Although M

UVIEMOT is developed on

ADOxx and the transformation only supports the

ADOxx Development environment, the phases are

generically applicable in the early steps of modelling

tool development, independently of the development

platform used.

3.2.1 Modelling Scenario

Due to the complex setting of multi-view modelling

methods (cf. Section 2.2), the first phase in the

procedural approach is trying to obtain an overview

over this complex setting. The Modelling Scenario

model is therefore directed towards supporting

method engineers in defining the overall setting of

the multi-view modelling method. This setting

includes the goals that can be derived by the

stakeholders, the metaphor the modeller should be

guided by and of course the viewpoints and the meta

models they are derived from. Additionally, the sub-

area of the real world covered by the model should

be delimited.

Most of these aspects can be specified

informally, e.g., using natural language. Considering

the meta models, the viewpoints, and the relations

between meta models and viewpoints, a formalized

specification enables machine-processing of the

models. The meta models and the viewpoints are

both specified using the modelling concepts of

ADOxx. Each concept of the meta model is

therefore modelled as either Modelling Class or

Relation Class. M

UVIEMOT enables the

specification of the notation, the representation of

the object instance's attributes (i.e., a ADOxx

Notebook), and user-specific attributes. Moreover,

inheritance relationships between Modelling Classes

can be specified. The result of the Modelling

Scenario is a complete specification of all

viewpoints and meta models together with

contextual information.

3.2.2 Multi-View Modelling Use Cases

The second phase uses the Modelling Scenario for

the specification of Multi-View Modelling Use Cases

(in the following referred to as use case). Each use

case depicts a modelling action, realized by an

interaction between the modeller and a viewpoint of

the modelling tool.

For each use case the method engineer can depict

in which viewpoints it can be triggered and on

which the execution of the use case has an effect on.

Moreover, relationships between use cases can be

defined (e.g., include, extend). The approach

differentiates between a direct effect, no effect, and a

conditional effect (e.g., the execution of an use case

in viewpoint A has only an effect on viewoint B, if

B contains a certain concept c). The different

relationship types are graphically visualized

differently, allowing immediate interpretation of

their semantics.

It is important to note, that the relationships

between different viewpoints are very complex. Not

all relationships are bi-directional, i.e., depending on

which view triggers a change, edit operations on

other views are performed or not. Another important

aspect is the fact, that the concepts who have to be

consistent do not always have to be same (e.g., they

have different semantics, only selected attributes are

kept consistent). Experience in the development of

multi-view modelling tools showed, that most of the

relationships are very complex. Often, changing of

attributes in one view results in a set of temporarily

inconsistencies that needs to be resolved by the tool

developer. Therefore, a model-based approach for

defining these dependencies is very useful.

3.2.3 Conceptual Design

The third phase of the approach considers the

information gathered in the preceding two steps and

combines them to a conceptual design specification

of a multi-view modelling tool. The conceptual

design provides all functional requirements derived

from the second step supplemented with non-

functional requirements for a MVM tool.

One emphasis of the conceptual design is on the

consistency between the views. Therefore, especially

the conditional effects defined in the multi-view

modelling use cases must be specified thoroughly.

Consequently, these consistency requirements

enable a tool developer for a more efficient

implementation. As for conventional software

engineering, early conception and design mistakes

are very expensive if they are revealed later.

Concentrating on these early steps in the conception

of a multi-view modelling tool should result in a

more mature and consistency-preserving modelling

tool.

The Conceptual Design model allows the

specification of the requirements in two ways, either

graphical or tabular. First, all functional

requirements derived from the second step, the

multi-view modelling use cases, are included. Then,

the method engineer can further define functional

and non-functional requirements. The constituents of

a requirement in the Conceptual Design model are

function, object, operator, effect, and consistency

(see (Bork and Sinz, 2013, p. 8f) for a

comprehensive description of the constituents).

4 MODEL-DRIVEN

DEVELOPMENT OF MULTI-

VIEW MODELLING TOOLS

The MUVIEMOT approach not only supports

modelling, specification, analysis and

documentation of MVM tools (cf. Section 3). The

generated models can be also used to derive a multi-

view modelling tool following a model-driven

development (MDD) approach. MDD "technologies

offer a promising approach to address the inability

of third-generation languages to alleviate the

complexity of platforms and express domain

concepts effectively" (Schmidt, 2006).

The starting point for the transformation is the

Modelling Scenario model. It includes the

specification of the meta models and the viewpoints.

Viewpoints are realized as model types in ADOxx.

In the following, the algorithm for transforming

the Modelling Scenario model into ADOxx Library

Language (ALL) code is explained.

4.1 Transforming the Modelling

Scenario into ALL Code

First, the algorithm searches for all Viewpoint

objects within the Modelling Scenario model. Each

view is being transformed into a MODELTYPE (cf.

Section 2.3) specification in the resulting ADOxx

library. A modeltype depicts the modelling classes

and relation classes that are considered within a

model in ADOxx. In order to delimit these

constituents, each Viewpoint is referencing a

Viewpoint Model. Within this model, all concepts

considered by the Viewpoint are defined by

projecting or selecting them from the specified meta

models. The algorithm includes all classes into the

ADOxx MODELTYPE, together with some

modeltype attributes the ADOxx platform supports.

After all classes are included, the actual meta

model needs to be specified using the concepts

provided by ADOxx. Therefore, the Meta Model

model referenced in the Modelling Scenario model

is retrieved. Within this meta model all classes are

specified comprehensively, including all user-

defined attributes and the attributes required by

ADOxx (e.g. the graphical representation and the

definition of the Notebook). If an inheritance

relationship is defined for a modelling class, all

attributes specified in the super class are also

included in the sub class. All information is gathered

and appended to the ALL specification of the

library.

The generated ALL specification allows the

immediate construction of an initial modelling tool

for the designed (i.e., modelled) MVMM.

Depending on the complexity of the method and the

constraints for building models according to the

method, additional implementation needs to be

performed. This implementation essentially regards

the modelling procedure and the mechanisms &

algorithms of the method. Consequently, the

generation limits the effort for implementation to a

minimal level. At some points during the modelling

process, the method engineer might be already

aware of functionality the developer needs to

implement on the platform (e.g., considering the

storage of the models or import/export format of the

models). In such cases, the M

UVIEMOT tool also

provides the method engineer with the possibility to

define some informal or pseudo-code specification

of the functionality easing the transfer of the

requirements between method engineer and tool

developer. Moreover, including the Multi-View

Modelling Use Cases and the Conceptual Design to

the M

UVIEMOT tool in the future will close this gap.

4.2 View Consistency Mechanisms

MUVIEMOT not only transforms the Modeling

Scenario into ADOxx modeltypes, the tool is also

able to compute a View Dependency model. The

algorithm searches in all Viewpoint Models for the

included concepts, i.e., modelling and relation

classes. For each concept, a list of views that include

the concept is generated. After all models are

checked, a new model is created that visualizes the

dependencies between view concepts and views.

The transformation algorithm then uses this

View Dependency model in order to add the

concepts that should be kept consistent when

changes are performed by the modeller in a certain

view. This generated synchronization mechanism is

executed whenever the modeller performs a

modelling action on the platform. If the changes

affect a concept that should be kept consistent, the

propagation of the changes to all corresponding

views is automatically triggered.

Figure 4: MUVIEMOT transformation process.

Figure 4 illustrates the transformation process by

highlighting the different MUVIEMOT models and

the information retrieved from them during

generation of the ADOxx library description in ALL

code. The ALL code can then be converted into an

actual ADOxx library (referred to in the following as

abl). A web converter implemented and operated by

the BOC allows the seamless conversion of ALL

code into an abl file. This file can then be imported

into the Development Toolkit of ADOxx. Within

seconds, the platform integrates the new library and

enables immediate creation of multi-view models

Figure 5: MUVIEMOT models for the SOM bp modelling method.

using the Modelling Toolkit. Of course, the imported

library can be processed further using the

functionality provided by ADOxx.

5 CASE STUDY

In the following, an application of MUVIEMOT by

means of a case study form the enterprise modelling

domain is discussed. For the case study, the

Semantic Object Model (SOM) (Ferstl and Sinz,

2013) enterprise modelling method is selected. The

SOM method is based on a multi-layer approach,

combining the layers enterprise plan, business

processes, and the specification of resources. Each

layer is defined by one or more interrelated

viewpoints. Therefore, SOM is a suitable candidate

for the evaluation of M

UVIEMOT in general and the

transformation algorithm in particular. The case

study concentrates on the business process (bp) layer

of SOM (Ferstl and Sinz, .2006). The creation of

SOM bp modelling utilizes a system-oriented multi-

view modelling approach (Bork and Sinz, 2013).

SOM bp models consist of four viewpoints, a

structural viewpoint called Interaction Schema, a

behavioural viewpoint called Task-Event Schema

and viewpoints on the Decomposition of Business

Objects and Business Transactions, respectively. All

viewpoints are derived by a projection on the

integrated SOM bp meta model (see Figure 6). SOM

bp modelling follows the metaphor "of a distributed

system, consisting of autonomous and loosely

coupled business objects. Business objects are

coordinated by means of business transactions

towards the fulfillment of common goals" (Ferstl and

Sinz, 2013). The goals for SOM bp modelling are

manifold and not limited by the authors of SOM.

Initially, SOM was created to enable analysis of

already existing and the specification of to-be

enterprise systems. All components identified have

been modelled in a comprehensive Modelling

Scenario model using the M

UVIEMOT tool (see

Figure 5 for an excerpt of the created MUVIEMOT

models).

Figure 6: SOM business process meta model (Ferstl and

Sinz, 2013).

In order to derive an initial implementation for

the SOM method, it was not enough to define the

Modelling Scenario. For each meta model (i.e., the

SOM bp meta model) and for each viewpoint

additional Meta Model models and View models

must be modelled, respectively. The SOM bp meta

model has been realized in the M

UVIEMOT tool by

mapping the concepts Business Object, Task,

External Event, Internal Event to the ADOxx

Modelling Class, whereas the concept of a Business

Transaction and Object-internal Event have been

mapped to the ADOxx Relation Class concept (cf.

the model in the lower left side of Figure 5).

Figure 7: Architecture of the M

T modelling tool.

Together with attributes describing the elements

and constraints considering the combination of them,

the meta model of SOM has been completely

modelled using the tool. For each of the SOM bp

viewpoints, a Viewpoint model has been modelled.

Each viewpoint is defined as a projection onto the

SOM bp meta model. M

T provides an easy

to use copy & paste functionality for copying

elements of the meta model and pasting them into

the Viewpoint model. All selected Modelling Class

and Relation Class concepts are copied together with

their attribute values.

After the generation of the models into over 1700

lines of ALL code, the ALL2ABL converter service

provided by the BOC can be used to generate an

ADOxx application library. This library can then be

imported into the ADOxx Development Toolkit

enabling the creation of models according to the

SOM method.

Due to the experience of implementing a SOM

modelling tool on ADOxx from scratch (cf. Bork

and Sinz, 2010) a comparison according to the

efficiency and the usability of the two development

approaches can be done. M

T and the

generation of the ALL extremely foster the

conception and implementation of multi-view

modelling tools on a higher abstraction level in a

more user-friendly way. A method engineer,

following the approach, can concentrate on the

domain-concepts and define the conceptual design

of a MVM tool in an intuitive way. He or she doesn't

have to go into the technical details e.g., how to

define a meta model on the meta modelling platform

or how to generate the multiple modelling editors.

Due to the automatic transformation, most of the

functionality is already generated. A tool developer

therefore only has to concentrate on the very specific

requirements of a modelling method that cannot be

generated or implemented automatically. These

specific requirements concentrate on the modelling

procedure and mechanisms & algorithms of the

method. However, the generated models contribute

to the discussions between method engineer and tool

developer by utilizing documentation and analysis

needs on a high abstraction level.

The case study showed the operability of the

approach and the transformation. The increase of

efficiency and usability in development encouraged

us to develop further functionality for M

in order to generate even more code automatically.

Consequently, future research will concentrate on

two major issues: First, a comprehensive user test

should be undertaken in order to evaluate not only

the operability but also the efficiency of the

approach compared to conventional implementation

from scratch. This evaluation should include several

different multi-view modelling methods. The divers

set of modelling methods available within the Open

Models Initiative (OMI) eases the access to more

candidates. Second, the model-based definition of

view constraints and the transformation of this

constraint models into AdoScript code should be

emphasized. This would enable the method engineer

to define the complex constraints also on a higher

abstraction level without considering the specific

technical implementation on the platform.

A first prototype of the M

T modelling

tool is being implemented within the Open Models

Initiative (Karagiannis et al., 2008) (OMI) at the

University of Vienna.

6 CONCLUSION

The paper at hand introduced MUVIEMOT, a set of

domain-specific modelling languages for the

specification and model-driven development of

multi-view modelling tools. The tool is realized

using the ADOxx meta modelling platform.

Operability and utility of the approach have been

discussed referring to a case study from the

enterprise modelling domain.

The current development status of M

UVIEMOT

limits its functionality to the specification of the

modelling language of a multi-view modelling

method. Modelling procedure and mechanisms &

algorithms are not regarded up to now.

As the results of the case study are very

promising, future research will concentrate on

broadening the tool support for M

UVIEMOT by

including the Multi-View Modelling Use Cases and

the Conceptual Design phases of the approach.

Recently, researchers have enabled the formal

specification of ADOxx meta modelling methods

using a mathematical notation, called FDMM (Fill et

al., 2012). Introducing the FDMM formalization as

another transformation target and/or enlarging the

FDMM approach to also formalize the specification

of multi-view modelling procedures may contribute

to foster the coupling of the M

UVIEMOT approach

and modelling tool development.

Additionally, coupling M

UVIEMOT with the

functionality provided by the statistical software

environment R would be a very interesting research

field (cf. the RUPERT modelling tool (Johannsen

and Fill, 2014)).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Hans-Georg Fill,

whose expertise and opinions have had a significant

influence while writing this paper.

REFERENCES

Alter, S. (2008). Defining information systems as work

systems: implications for the IS field. European

Journal of Information Systems, 17(5):448–469.

Atkinson, C., Gerbig, R., and Tunjic, C. (2013). A

Multilevel Modeling Environment for SUM-based

Software Engineering. In Proceedings of the 1st

Workshop on View-Based, Aspect-Oriented and

Orthographic Software Modelling, VAO ’13, pages

2:1–2:9, New York, NY, USA. ACM.

Benington, H. D. (1983). Production of Large Computer

Programs. IEEE Annals of History of Computing,

5(4):350–361.

Bork, D. and Fill, H.-G. (2014). Formal Aspects of

Enterprise Modeling Methods: A Comparison

Framework. In Sprague, R. H. J., editor, Proceedings

of the 47

Hawaii International Conference on System

Sciences, HICSS’2014, pages 3400–3409, Big Island,

Hawaii, USA. IEEE Computer Society Press.

Bork, D. and Sinz, E. J. (2010). Design of a SOM

Business Process Modelling Tool based on the

ADOxx Meta-modelling Platform. In de Lara, J.,

Varro, D., Margaria, T., Padberg, J., and Taentzer, G.,

editors, 4th International Workshop on Graph Based

Tools, (GraBaTs 2010), Enschede, The Netherlands,

pages 90–101.

Bork, D. and Sinz, E. J. (2013). Bridging the Gap from a

Multi-View Modelling Method to the Design of a

Multi-View Modeling Tool. Enterprise Modelling and

Information Systems Architectures (EMISA) - An

International Journal, 8(2):25–41.

Carlson, C. R. and Arora, A. K. (1979). The updatability

of relational views based on functional dependencies.

In Computer Software and Applications Conference,

Proceedings. COMPSAC 79. pages 415–420.

Cicchetti, A., Ciccozzi, F., and Leveque, T. (2011). A

hybrid approach for multi-view modeling. Electronic

Communication of the ECEASST, 50. Dayal, U. and

Bernstein, P. A. (1978). On the Updatability of

Relational Views., pages 368–377. IEEE Computer

Society.

Dayal, U. and Bernstein, P. A. (1982). On the Correct

Translation of Update Operations on Relational

Views. ACM Transactions on Database Systems,

7(3):381–416.

Dijkman, R. M., Quartel, D. A. C., and van Sinderen, M.

J. (2008). Consistency in multi-viewpoint design of

enterprise information systems. Information Software

Technology, 50 (7-8):737–752.

Ferstl, O. K. and Sinz, E. J. (2006). Modeling of Business

Systems Using SOM. In Bernus, P., Mertins, K., and

Schmidt, G., editors, Handbook on Architectures of

Information Systems, pages 347–367. Springer Berlin

Heidelberg.

Ferstl, O. K. and Sinz, E. J. (2013). Grundlagen der

Wirtschaftsinformatik. Oldenbourg, München, 7th

edition.

Fill, H.-G. and Karagiannis, D. (2013). On the

Conceptualisation of Modelling Methods Using the

ADOxx Meta Modelling Platform. Enterprise

Modelling and Information Systems Architectures

(EMISA), 8(1):4–25.

Fill, H.-G., Redmond, T., and Karagiannis, D. (2012).

FDMM: A Formalism for Describing ADOxx Meta

Models and Models. In Maciaszek, L., Cuzzocrea, A.,

and Cordeiro, J., editors, 14th International

Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pages

133–144.

Finkelstein, A. and Fuks, H. (1989). Multi-party

Specification. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes,

14(3):185–195.

Finkelstein, A., Kramer, J., Nuseibeh, B., Finkelstein, L.,

and Goedicke, M. (1992). Viewpoints: A Framework

for Integrating Multiple Perspectives in System

Development. International Journal of Software

Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 2.

Frank, U. (1994). Multiperspektivische

Unternehmensmodellierung: Theoretischer

Hintergrund und Entwurf einer objektorientierten

Entwicklungsumgebung. Berichte der Gesellschaft für

Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung. Oldenbourg,

München.

Frank, U. (2010). Outline of a method for designing

domain-specific modelling languages. ICB-Research

Report 42, University Duisburg-Essen.

Frank, U., Strecker, S., Fettke, P., Brocke, J., Becker, J.,

and Sinz, E. (2014). The Research Field ”Modeling

Business Information Systems”. Business &

Information Systems Engineering, 6(1):39–43.

Harel, D. and Rumpe, B. (2000). Modeling Languages:

Syntax, Semantics and All That Stuff Part I: The Basic

Stuff. Technical report, The Weizmann Institute of

Science.

Harel, D. and Rumpe, B. (2004). Meaningful Modeling:

What’s the Semantics of „Semantics“? IEEE

Computer, 37(10):64–72.

Johannsen, F. and Fill, H.-G. (2014). RUPERT: A

modelling tool for supporting business process

improvement initiatives. In Proceedings of the 2014

International Conference on Design Science Research

in Information Systems and Technology,

DESRIST’2014, Miami, USA.

Junginger S, Kühn H, Strobl R, Karagiannis Dimitris

(2000) Ein Geschäftsprozessmanagement-Werkzeug

der nächsten Generation - ADONIS: Konzeption und

Anwendungen. Wirtschaftsinformatik 42(5):392–401

Karagiannis, D., Grossmann, W., and Hoefferer, P. (2008).

Open Model Initiative: A Feasilbility Study. http:

//cms.dke.univie.ac.at/uploads/media/Open_Models_F

easibility_Study_SEPT_2008.pdf, last checked: 2014-

06-14.

Karagiannis, D. and Kühn, H. (2002). Metamodeling

Platforms. In Bauknecht, K., Min Tjoa, A., and

Quirchmayr, G., editors, Third International

Conference ECWeb 2002 – Dexa, 2002, page 182,

Aix-en-Provence, France. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,

Heidelberg.

Keller. A. M. Algorithms for Translating View Updates to

Database Updates for Views Involving Selections,

Projections, and Joins. In Proceedings of the Fourth

ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of

Database Systems, PODS '85, pages 154-163, New

York, NY, USA, 1985. ACM.

Kheir, A., Naja, H., Oussalah, M., and Tout, K. (2013).

Overview of an Approach Describing Multi-views/

Multi-abstraction Levels Software Architecture. In

Maciaszek, L. A. and Filipe, J., editors, Proceedings of

the 8th International Conference on Evaluation of

Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE),

pages 140–148.

Kruchten, P. (1995). Architectural Blueprints - The ”4+1”

View Model of Software Architecture. IEEE Software,

12(6):42–50.

Lechtenbörger, J. (2003). The Impact of the Constant

Complement Approach Towards View Updating. In

Proceedings of the Twenty-second ACM SIGMOD-

SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of

Database Systems, PODS ’03, pages 49–55, New

York, NY, USA. (ACM).

Mili, H., Dargham, J., Mili, A., Cherkaoui, O., and Godin,

R. View programming for decentralized development

of OO programs. In Technology of Object-Oriented

Languages and Systems, 1999. TOOLS 30, pages 210-

221.

Nassar, M. (2003). VUML: a Viewpoint oriented UML

Extension. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE

International Conference on Automated Software

Engineering, pages 373–376.

Romeikat, R., Roser, S., Muellender, P., and Bauer, B.

Translation of QVT Relations into QVT Operational

Mappings. In Theory and Practice of Model

Transformations 2008, pages 137–151. Springer.

Schmidt, D. C. (2006). Guest Editor’s Introduction:

Model-Driven Engineering. IEEE Computer,

39(2):25–31.

Sprinkle, J., Rumpe, B., Vangheluwe, H., and Karsai, G.

(2010). Metamodelling - State of the Art and Research

Challenges, In Proceedings of the 2007 International

Dagstuhl conference on Model-based engineering of

embedded real-time systems, pages 57–76. Springer.

Tolvanen, J.-P. (2005). Domain-specific modeling for full

code generation. Methods & Tools, 13(3):14–23.

Tolvanen, J.-P. and Rossi, M. (2003). MetaEdit+:

Defining and Using Domain-Specific Modeling

Languages and Code Generators. In Companion of the

18th annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-

oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and

Applications, OOPSLA ’03, pages 92–93, New York,

USA. (ACM).

BRIEF BIOGRAPHY

Dimitris Karagiannis is head of the research group

knowledge engineering at the University of Vienna.

His main research interests include knowledge

management, modelling methods and meta-

modelling. Besides his engagement in national and

EU-funded research projects Dimitris Karagiannis is

the author of research papers and books on

Knowledge Databases, Business Process

Management, Workflow-Systems and Knowledge

Management. He serves as expert in various

international conferences and is presently on the

editorial board of Business & Information Systems

Engineering (BISE), Enterprise Modelling and

Information Systems Architectures and the Journal

of Systems Integration. He is member of IEEE and

ACM and is on the executive board of GI as well as

on the steering committee of the Austrian Computer

Society and its Special Interest Group on IT

Governance. Recently he started the Open Model

Initiative (www.openmodels.at) in Austria. In 1995

he established the Business Process Management

Systems Approach (BPMS), which has been

successfully implemented in several industrial and

service companies, and is the founder of the

European software- and consulting company BOC

(http://www.boc-group.com), which implements

software tools based on the meta-modelling

approach.