MATHS VS (META)MODELLING - Are we Reinventing the Wheel?

D. H. Akehurst, W. G. J. Howells, B. Bordbar, K. D. McDonald-Maier

Abstract

In the past, specification of languages and data structures has traditionally been formally achieved using mathematical notations. This is very precise and unambiguous, however it does not map easily to modern programming languages and many engineers are put off by mathematical notation. Recent developments in graphical specification of structures, drawing from Object-Oriented programming languages, has lead to the development of Class Diagrams as a well-used means to define data structures. We show in this paper that there are strong parallels between the two techniques, but that also there are some surprising differences!

References

  1. OMG, "UML 2.0 Infrastructure Specification," Object Management Group ptc/03-09-15, September 2003 2003.
  2. OMG, "UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification," Object Management Group ptc/03-08-02, August 2003 2003.
  3. C. Atkinson and T. Kuhne, "Model-driven development: a metamodeling foundation," Software, IEEE, vol. 20, pp. 36-41, 2003.
  4. A. G. Kleppe, J. B. Warmer, W. Bast, and A. Watson, MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise: Addison-Wesley Professional, 2003.
  5. B. Selic, "The pragmatics of model-driven development," Software, IEEE, vol. 20, pp. 19-25, 2003.
  6. K. Chen, J. Sztipanovits, and S. Neema, "Toward a semantic anchoring infrastructure for domain-specific modeling languages," Proceedings of the 5th ACM international conference on Embedded software, pp. 35-43, 2005.
  7. J. Greenfield and K. Short, Software factories: assembling applications with patterns, models, frameworks and tools: ACM Press New York, NY, USA, 2003.
  8. A. van Deursen, P. Klint, and J. Visser, "Domain-specific languages: an annotated bibliography," ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 35, pp. 26-36, 2000.
  9. M. Vokac and J. M. Glattetre, "Using a domain-specific language and custom tools to model a multi-tier service-oriented application-: Experiences and challenges," Lecture notes in computer science, pp. 492-506.
  10. D. Wile, "Supporting the DSL Spectrum," Journal of Computing and Information Technology, vol. 9, pp. 263-287, 2001.
  11. M. Alanen and I. Porres, A Relation Between Context-free Grammars and Meta Object Facility Metamodels: Turku Centre for Computer Science, 2004.
  12. M. Wimmer and G. Kramler, "Bridging grammarware and modelware," Satellite Events at the MoDELS 2005 Conference: MoDELS, pp. 159-168, 2005.
  13. V. Stoltenberg-Hansen, I. Lindström, and E. R. Griffor, Mathematical theory of domains: Cambridge University Press New York, NY, USA, 1994.
  14. J. E. Stoy, Denotational Semantics: The Scott-Strachey Approach to Programming Language Theory: MIT Press Cambridge, MA, USA, 1977.
  15. F. K. Hanna and N. Daeche, "Dependent Types and Formal Synthesis," Philosophical Transactions: Physical Sciences and Engineering, vol. 339, pp. 121- 135, 1992.
  16. F. K. Hanna, N. Daeche, and G. Howells, "Implementation of the Veritas Design Logic," Proc. of the International Conference on Theorem Provers in Circuit Design: Theory, Practice and Experience, pp. 77-94, 1992.
  17. F. K. Hanna, N. Daeche, and M. Longley, "Specification and verification using dependent types," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 16, pp. 949-964, 1990.
  18. A. Cohn, "The notion of proof in hardware verification," Journal of Automated Reasoning, vol. 5, pp. 127-139, 1989.
  19. T. Murata, "Petri Nets: Properties, Analysis and Applications," Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 77, pp. 541-580, 1989.
  20. D. Akehurst, G. Howells, and K. McDonald-Maier, "Implementing associations: UML 2.0 to Java 5," Software and Systems Modeling, vol. 6, pp. 3-35, 2007.
  21. F. Budinsky, Eclipse Modeling Framework: A Developer's Guide: Addison-Wesley, 2003.
  22. S. Thompson, Type theory and functional programming: Addison-Wesley Wokingham, England, 1991.
  23. P. Klint, R. Lämmel, and C. Verhoef, "Toward an engineering discipline for grammarware," ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), vol. 14, pp. 331-380, 2005.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

H. Akehurst D., G. J. Howells W., Bordbar B. and D. McDonald-Maier K. (2008). MATHS VS (META)MODELLING - Are we Reinventing the Wheel? . In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 2: MUSE, (ICSOFT 2008) ISBN 978-989-8111-52-4, pages 313-322. DOI: 10.5220/0001897403130322


in Bibtex Style

@conference{muse08,
author={D. H. Akehurst and W. G. J. Howells and B. Bordbar and K. D. McDonald-Maier},
title={MATHS VS (META)MODELLING - Are we Reinventing the Wheel?},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 2: MUSE, (ICSOFT 2008)},
year={2008},
pages={313-322},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0001897403130322},
isbn={978-989-8111-52-4},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 2: MUSE, (ICSOFT 2008)
TI - MATHS VS (META)MODELLING - Are we Reinventing the Wheel?
SN - 978-989-8111-52-4
AU - H. Akehurst D.
AU - G. J. Howells W.
AU - Bordbar B.
AU - D. McDonald-Maier K.
PY - 2008
SP - 313
EP - 322
DO - 10.5220/0001897403130322