Correctly defined concrete syntax

Due to their complexity, the syntax of modern modeling languages is preferably defined in two steps. The abstract syntax identifies all modeling concepts whereas the concrete syntax should clarify how these concepts are rendered by graphical and/or textual elements. While the abstract syntax is often defined in form of a metamodel, there does not exist such standard format yet for concrete syntax definitions. The diversity of definition formats—ranging from EBNF grammars to informal text—is becoming a major obstacle for advances in modeling language engineering, including the automatic generation of editors. In this paper, we propose a uniform format for concrete syntax definitions. Our approach captures both textual and graphical model representations and even allows to assign more than one rendering to the same modeling concept. Consequently, following our approach, a model can have multiple, fully equivalent representations, but—in order to avoid ambiguities when reading a model representation—two different models should always have distinguishable representations. We call a syntax definition correct, if all well-formed models are represented in a non-ambiguous way. As the main contribution of this paper, we present a rigorous analysis technique to check the correctness of concrete syntax definition

Correctly defined concrete syntax

Due to their complexity, the syntax of modern modeling languages is preferably defined in two steps. The abstract syntax identifies all modeling concepts whereas the concrete syntax should clarify how these concepts are rendered by graphical and/or textual elements. While the abstract syntax is often defined in form of a metamodel, there does not exist such standard format yet for concrete syntax definitions. The diversity of definition formats-ranging from EBNF grammars to informal text-is becoming a major obstacle for advances in modeling language engineering, including the automatic generation of editors. In this paper, we propose a uniform format for concrete syntax definitions. Our approach captures both textual and graphical model representations and even allows to assign more than one rendering to the same modeling concept. Consequently, following our approach, a model can have multiple, fully equivalent representations, but-in order to avoid ambiguities when reading a model representation-two different models should always have distinguishable representations. We call a syntax definition correct, if all well-formed models are represented in a non-ambiguous way. As the main contribution of this paper, we present a rigorous analysis technique to check the correctness of concrete syntax definitions

Correctly Defined Concrete Syntax for Visual Modeling Languages

The syntax of modeling languages is usually defined in two steps. The abstract syntax identifies modeling concepts whereas the concrete syntax clarifies how these modeling concepts are rendered by visual and/or textual elements. While the abstract syntax is often defined in form of a metamodel there is no such standard format yet for concrete syntax definitions; at least as long as the concrete syntax is not purely text-based and classical grammar-based approaches are not applicable. In a previous paper, we proposed to extend the metamodeling approach also to concrete syntax definitions. In this paper, we present an analysis technique for our concrete syntax definitions that detects inconsistencies between the abstract and the concrete syntax of a modeling language. We have implemented our approach on top of the automatic decision procedure SIMPLIFY

On the role of domain ontologies in the design of domain-specific visual modeling langages

Domain-Specific Visual Modeling Languages should provide notations and abstractions that suitably support problem solving in well-defined application domains. From their user’s perspective, the language’s modeling primitives must be intuitive and expressive enough in capturing all intended aspects of domain conceptualizations. Over the years formal and explicit representations of domain conceptualizations have been developed as domain ontologies. In this paper, we show how the design of these languages can benefit from conceptual tools developed by the ontology engineering community

An 00 visual language definition approach supporting multiple views

The formal approach to visual language definition is to use graph grammars and/or graph transformation techniques. These techniques focus on specifying the syntax and manipulation rules of the concrete representation. This paper presents a constraint and object-oriented approach to defining visual languages that uses UML and OCL as a definition language. Visual language definitions specify a mapping between concrete and abstract models of possible visual sentences, which carl subsequently be used to determine if instances of each model "validly" express each other. This technique supports many:many mappings between concrete and abstract model instances, and supports the implementation of functionality that requires feedback from the abstract domain to the concrete