1

based on the four layer MOF structure, I'm currently working on a model (in fact a UML class diagram) at M1 level. However, I observed that some parts of the meta model are highly depending on references to certain classes, which may may differ depending on the use case. Therefore, I created a meta model on the M2 level, which allows users to define the variable parts of the M1 Model, which again can then be generated and incorpareted in the M1 model. The following images tries to depict that:

enter image description here

A resulting M1 model example would then look like that:enter image description here

As switching between the different levels can be a little bit confusing, I wonder if this approach is per se possible and UML conform? Furthermore, is there a notation for the "generated instances" relation in Figure 1 by chance? Within the MOF spec, <<merge>> or <<import>> is for example used, which maybe fit in for that purpose.

qwerty_so
  • 35,448
  • 8
  • 62
  • 86
ph09
  • 1,052
  • 2
  • 20
  • 31
  • Tricky. What's the reason you thought that changes needed to be made on M2. Isn't it that you could not find a good enough abstraction for your meta model? – qwerty_so Jun 12 '17 at 23:17
  • That's the problem. I want to provide a generic template on M2, as the referred classes, the multiplicities and roles on M1 can heavily differ and thus it's not really possible to have an abstraction on M1. – ph09 Jun 13 '17 at 07:49
  • I mean, providing an editor for the M2 template, e.g. via EMF, which generates compatible M1 models, shouldn't be a big deal, but I'm more concerned about the notation and if I break any UMl related concepts by doing so – ph09 Jun 13 '17 at 07:52

1 Answers1

0

Probably your question is too broad to give a concise answer. However, here's my advice when dealing with meta models: I found that people hardly have an idea why you need a meta model at all and it takes quite some time to convince them starting to create one. Even with so called UML pros. Now, with that in background, it's evident that modelers who shall use the meta model might have even more difficulties dealing with it. This leaves just one way: keep it simple. And that's what I did in the past. Introducing a meta model with just really the basics, concentrating on meta types, tagged values and some connectors. After a while, people really get used to it and appreciate working with the meta model. Only then there starts the need to switch to a version two, which is still static though.

Now, what you want looks like a version ninety nine. This would probably only work in a super model where you have some gurus floating on top of it all an provide a meta meta model. This will going to be interesting and I'd like to be part of that team. However, I doubt you will be able to get practicable results from it. My recommendation is that you stay with the static meta model. Everything else will likely lead you to nowhere.

qwerty_so
  • 35,448
  • 8
  • 62
  • 86