DSL's and MDA

re: DSL's and MDA

Nathan Dykman — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 07:12:00 GMT

Some comments. As one of the authors of the UML2.0 spec, I feel I should stand up for it a bit.

Basically, I think UML 2.0 itself is a good foundation to establish modeling languages on.

The problem with DSLs is that without common modeling infrastructure, you are really reinventing the wheels for each new DSL language. I argue you have to have a modeling infrastructure anyway to really do modeling correctly. I think the eCore project in Eclipse is a good example of moving toward this idea of a modeling infrastructure. Of course, there is a new project to support UML 2.0 metamodels in Eclipse.

I agree that MOF and XMI have problems.
But, UML 2.0 is self-describing: The UML2.0 metamodel is a UML 2.0 class model. You don't need MOF or XMI to understand/use UML 2.0 and UML 2.0 was design with that goal implictly in mind.

In fact, I think there is an need to define a new XML seralization format for UML 2.0 independent of MOF and XMI.

I personally had the idea that one could base it on annotation and extensions of XSD to create a metamodel schema. This means that there is a mapping of any XSD into a UML metamodel.

XSD does have limits in scale. In fact, most XML editors have a graphical (read modeling) tool for XSD. I think UML scales up more. I think that the UML metamodel allows for fairly easy definition of much more complex structures that XSD can easily define.

I think the UML 2.0 core metamodel provides a useful basics for modeling infrastructure. Why completely reinvent the wheel?

One choice is that Microsoft does it's own modeling infrastructure, and somebody could very likely put UML on top of it. So, we get UML anyway.

The other choice is to use UML 2.0 as a starting point, and work on evolving the standard, and maybe creating new standards if the need arises.

The advantage of supporting UML 2.0 is that you have interoperability and you can build a community around the standard. People can build libraries of modeling languages and extensions, and many tools can use them, including VS.

It would be my wish that MS take the lead and by using the UML 2.0 metamodel as a starting point, develop a complete, powerful and extensible modeling infrastructure based on metamodeling concepts.

I think UML 2.0 is a good starting point for model-based technologies. It certainly isn't the last word. I am certain that MS would provide extremely significant input into future modeling standards.

Thanks for your consideration,

Nathan Dykman

re: Modelling

Michael Platt's WebLog — Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:14:00 GMT

Modelling

Michael Platt's WebLog — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:20:00 GMT

Quick links about my day job...

when setup isn't just xcopy — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:50:00 GMT

More details about what I actually get paid to work on at Microsoft, namely: DSI and SDM.

re: DSL's and MDA

Keith Short — Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:42:00 GMT

For anybody interested, I've just heard from the DNJ folks in the UK that you no longer have to register to access the interview I did with Tim Anderson. Its available at the URL above.

re: DSL's and MDA

Keith Short — Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:42:00 GMT

Whoops: the URL at DNJ Online is:

http://dnjonline.com/articles/architect/jan04_whidbeydesign.asp

re: DSL's and MDA

Keith Short — Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:49:00 GMT

Thanks for your comments Nathan. I hope you've had a chance to look at some of the papers I referenced in the postings, and particularly Steve Cook's paper on DSLs and MDA. Obviously we disagree with some of your points. I'll pick up specific ones of these in another posting, and make sure we don't loose the opportunity for a debate around our disagreements. As you'll note from comments made in our postings and references, we do think there has been good work in the UML space, but feel our arguments still hold weight.

re: DSL's and MDA

Nathan Dykman — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 06:17:00 GMT

Keith,

Thanks for your comments. First, I absolutely agree that a lot of your arguments hold weight. Some of them are dead on. Believe me, I share many of your reservations about MDA, MOF and XMI.

Also, I just had a chance to read your DNJ article, and I completely agree that metamodeling is the key to extensiblity. I totally agree with the approach of DSLs as smaller metamodels. That is the proper approach, and metamodel support is sadly lacking/non-existent in UML tools. So, we are on the same page about modeling infrastructure after all.

It is also a good point that UML 2.0 may not be modular enough yet. I do think it is much better than UML 1.x, which is much too monolithic.

At any rate, it certainly seems to me that given the metamodel approach, UML is by no means incompatible with Microsoft's approach to modeling, certainly not to the degree some may be suggesting.

Opinions aside, great tools are great tools, and I'm excited by the approach MS is taking, and want to see it be a wild success. It would be a great thing for the modeling community (and MS) as a whole.

Please feel free to contact me at ndykman `at` cs.utah.edu if you think email is warranted. I will checking your blog as well.

Thanks for your attention.

Keith Short s Blog DSL s and MDA | Paid Surveys

Keith Short s Blog DSL s and MDA | Paid Surveys — Fri, 29 May 2009 02:13:23 GMT

PingBack from http://paidsurveyshub.info/story.php?title=keith-short-s-blog-dsl-s-and-mda

Keith Short s Blog DSL s and MDA | Green Tea Fat Burner

Keith Short s Blog DSL s and MDA | Green Tea Fat Burner — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 04:52:38 GMT

PingBack from http://greenteafatburner.info/story.php?id=4208

Keith Short s Blog DSL s and MDA | Quick Diets

Keith Short s Blog DSL s and MDA | Quick Diets — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:11:42 GMT

PingBack from http://quickdietsite.info/story.php?id=822

Keith Short s Blog DSL s and MDA | porch swing

Keith Short s Blog DSL s and MDA | porch swing — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:38:05 GMT

PingBack from http://fancyporchswing.info/story.php?id=1241