|Best way to create an uml-approximated metamodel [message #627749]
||Tue, 30 June 2009 12:54
| Timothy Marc
Registered: July 2009
after all my questions concerning the uml metamodel etc., you can
imagine, that i have to build a metamodel, that is partially very close
to the UML::Classes package. We have a controverse discussion, about
what is the best way to do this. We will have a lot of transformations
from the UML to our metamodel, in particular structural aspects like
Classes, etc. Here are the different opinions:
1. Reuse the kernel package by applying the merge mechanism to all the
packages and subpackages in the UML::Class package. This will provide
exactly the same strcuture as it is in the UML, and with EMF wonderful
capability to evaluate ocl expression, most of the additional operations
had not to be reimplemented.
-> imho, this is right, but all the derived properties had to be
implemented again. So, this is an error-prone process.
2. Extending the uml metamodel is a good alternative, since we are in
the uml scope and therefore, we need no explicit transformation from uml
to our metamodel. An element X extend UML::Class is of course an
UML::Class, so that we can change the models between the UML and our scope.
-> imho, this is the worth idea, because with this, we need the full UML
model, which is not necessary for us. Beyond that fact, it is not easy
to particpate to all these associations etc., so a detailled knowledge
of the UML is needed, that is not given by everyone.
3. Reimplement the concepts we needed from cratch with respect to the
UML metamodel. This provides a very flexible, yet independent mechanism,
to evluate our metamodel, uncoupled from the UML.
-> i prefer this one. I know, reimplementing the classes kernel is not
very comfortable, but the best solution for our situation.
To sum-up all this stuff: i think, point 1 or 3 are the most practical
ones, since they allows us to restrict or change some aspects of the
uml. In opposite, this is not compatibl with the UML, so everytime, we
need aspects from our metamodel, we had to convert the UML model into an
instance of our model.
Is this mostly correct, and if so, are there other causes i can exhibit
in the upcoming discussion wiht my colleagues and my boss?
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.02546 seconds