Dear all, (01)
Following is a reply to a conversation I initiated with Till and that he asked
me to share. (02)
Eclipse in its "Eclipse Modeling Tools" packaging flavor provides an
open-source XMI, MOF and UML tree editor (http://eclipse.org/downloads/).
The MOF metamodel I mailed doesn't contain a diagrammatic representation.
Should you want to have a UML diagrammatic representation of the DOL metamodel,
you may use Papyrus which is Eclipse's open-source UML editor
(http://eclipse.org/papyrus/). (03)
Until I manually make the entire metamodel, it is hard to tell the differences.
But, as far as I saw, the 'IRI' definition (in the MOF metamodel) seems clumsy.
The definition of 'OntoLangTrans' seems (in the MOF metamodel) awkward too. A
manually created metamodel would probably package metaclasses for 'Distributed
OMSs', 'Heterogeneous OMSs' and 'OMS Mappings' in different packages.
Basically, the generated MOF metamodel is too much "textual language tainted". (04)
The point of my mail is to ask if you think a MOF metamodel of DOL's abstract
syntax would be of any added value (probably as informative annex).
The draft I mailed aims at giving an idea of what a naïve metamodel would look
like.
When you reach a stable version and if you think a MOF definition of DOL's
abstract syntax is of interest, I may take time to propose a non-naive MOF
metamodel. (05)
Best regards. (06)
--------------------------------
Florian NOYRIT
+33 (0)1 69 08 01 01 - florian.noyrit@xxxxxx
CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV
Institut CARNOT CEA LIST
DILS/Laboratory of model driven engineering for embedded systems (LISE),
Point Courrier 174, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France (07)
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Till Mossakowski [mailto:mossakow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Envoyé : mercredi 12 mars 2014 13:01
À : NOYRIT Florian
Objet : Re: MOF definition of DOL abstract syntax. (08)
Dear Florian, (09)
many thanks!
Could you advise a tool for viewing the XMI? For example, a UML tool like
modelio?
Can you forward this to the OntoIOp open discussion list
<ontoiop-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>?
What would be the difference to a manually created version? (010)
All the best,
Till (011)
Am 12.03.2014 11:43, schrieb NOYRIT Florian:
> Dear Till,
>
> Regarding the ongoing work on OntoIOp, in order to ease the definition of
>MOF-based OMS languages to be conformant with DOL, a MOF definition of DOL
>abstract syntax might be useful.
> I generated a naïve MOF (and therefore SMOF) definition of DOL abstract
>syntax from the EBNF grammar defined in Clause 8 of the current draft. The
>result is attached to this mail.
> It is naïve because I didn't reformatted the generated metamodel. Also, I say
>it is naïve because if I had to define the MOF metamodel for DOL manually, I
>would have produced something different.
>
> This is just a draft I generated with Eclipse tooling for discussion purpose
>only.
>
> Best regards.
>
> --------------------------------
> Florian NOYRIT
> +33 (0)1 69 08 01 01 - florian.noyrit@xxxxxx
> CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV
> Institut CARNOT CEA LIST
> DILS/Laboratory of model driven engineering for embedded systems
> (LISE), Point Courrier 174, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
> (012)
dol.cmof
Description: dol.cmof
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontoiop-forum/
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum/
Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntoIOp (01)
|