Advertisement

Generative Technologies for Model Animation in the TopCased Platform

  • Xavier Crégut
  • Benoit Combemale
  • Marc Pantel
  • Raphaël Faudoux
  • Jonatas Pavei
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6138)

Abstract

Domain Specific Modeling Languages (DSML) are more and more used to handle high level concepts, and thus bring complex software development under control. The increasingly recurring definition of new languages raises the problem of the definition of support tools such as editor, simulator, compiler, etc. In this paper we propose generative technologies that have been designed to ease the development of model animation tools inside the TopCased platform. These tools rely on the automatically generated graphical editors of TopCased and provide additional generators for building model animator graphical interface. We also rely on an architecture for executable metamodel (i.e., the TopCased model execution metamodeling pattern) to bind the behavioral semantics of the modeling language. These tools were designed in a pragmatic manner by abstracting the various model animators that had been hand-coded in the TopCased project, and then validated by refactoring these animators.

Keywords

Generative technologies Model animation Model execution Metamodeling pattern 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Combemale, B., Crégut, X., Giacometti, J.P., Michel, P., Pantel, M.: Introducing Simulation and Model Animation in the MDE topcased Toolkit. In: ERTS (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Combemale, B., Rougemaille, S., Crégut, X., Migeon, F., Pantel, M., Maurel, C., Coulette, B.: Towards rigorous metamodeling. In: MDEIS, pp. 5–14. INSTICC Press (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Combemale, B., Crégut, X., Garoche, P.L., Thirioux, X., Vernadat, F.: A Property-Driven Approach to Formal Verification of Process Models. In: Enterprise Information System IX, Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bendraou, R., Combemale, B., Crégut, X., Gervais, M.P.: Definition of an executable spem 2.0. In: APSEC, pp. 390–397 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farail, P., Gaufillet, P., Canals, A., Camus, C.L., Sciamma, D., Michel, P., Crégut, X., Pantel, M.: The TOPCASED project: a toolkit in open source for critical aeronautic systems design. In: ERTS (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Object Management Group, Inc.: Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Core Specification, Final Adopted Specification (January 2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winkelmann, K.: Formal Methods in Designing Embedded Systems - The SACRES Experience. In: Formal Methods in System Design, vol. 19, pp. 81–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harel, D., Naamad, A.: The STATEMATE semantics of Statecharts, vol. 5(4), pp. 293–333. ACM Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Behrmann, G., David, A., Larsen, K.G., Möller, O., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: Uppaal - Present and Future. In: Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC 2001), Orlando, Florida, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Colgren, R.: Basic Matlab Simulink and Stateflow. In: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. AIAA Education Series (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Campbell, S.L., Chancelier, J.P., Nikoukhah, R.: Modeling and Simulation in Scilab/Scicos. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, E.A.: Overview of the Ptolemy project. Technical Memorandum UCB/ERL no M03/25, University of California at Berkeley (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dotan, D., Kirshin, A.: Debugging and testing behavioral uml models. In: OOPSLA Companion, pp. 838–839. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wachsmuth, G.: Modelling the operational semantics of domain-specific modelling languages. In: Lämmel, R., Visser, J., Saraiva, J. (eds.) Generative and Transformational Techniques in Software Engineering II. LNCS, vol. 5235, pp. 506–520. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sadilek, D.A., Wachsmuth, G.: Prototyping visual interpreters and debuggers for domain-specific modelling languages. In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5095, pp. 63–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sadilek, D.A., Wachsmuth, G.: Using grammarware languages to define operational semantics of modelled languages. In: Brakhage, H. (ed.) GI-Fachtagung 1975. LNCS, vol. 33, pp. 348–356. Springer, Heidelberg (1975)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Soden, M., Eichler, H.: Towards a model execution framework for eclipse. In: 1st Workshop on Behaviour Modelling in Model-Driven Architecture, pp. 1–7. ACM, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xavier Crégut
    • 1
  • Benoit Combemale
    • 2
  • Marc Pantel
    • 1
  • Raphaël Faudoux
    • 3
  • Jonatas Pavei
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.IRITUniversité de ToulouseFrance
  2. 2.IRISAUniversité de Rennes 1France
  3. 3.ATOS OriginToulouseFrance
  4. 4.Universidade Federal de Santa CatarinaBrazil

Personalised recommendations