A metamodel based model transformation approach

Proceedings - Third ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications, SERA 2005

Volumn 2005, Issue , 2005, Pages 184-191

  Duan, Yucong ^a   Cheung, S C ^b   Fu, Xiaolan ^c   Gu, Yuqing ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS   (China)

^b HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Hong Kong)

^c INSTITUTE OF PSYCHOLOGY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION); INFORMATION ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MATHEMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

METAMODELS; MODEL DRIVEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (MDSD); TRANSFORMATION RULES; UML;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 33745926611     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/SERA.2005.10     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Alexander Egyed. Heterogeneous Views Integration and its Automation, Ph.D. Thesis.Univ. of Southern California, 2000.
2. Alexander Egyed. Automated abstraction of class diagrams, ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11(4); 449-491 (2002).
3. Aditya Agrawal, A Metamodel based model transformation language. Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications archive Companion of the 18th OOPSLA.2003. Pages: 386 - 387
4. Jackson, D. Rinard, M. Software analysis: A roadmap. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 2000.133-145.
5. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.0, Revised Final Adopted specification, ptc/04-05-02, http://www.omg.org/uml/
6. Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Lami, G., Macoari, A. Application of Linguistic Techniques for Use Case Analysis, Proceedings of RE 2002, pp. 157-164, Sep 9-13, 2002, Essen, Germany. IEEE Computer Society 2002
7. Joaquin Miller, Jishnu Mukerji.MDA. Guide Version 1.0.1. Copyright@ 2003 OMG.www.omg.org/docs/omg/03-06-01.pdf
8. P. Tarr, H. Ossher, W. Harrison, and S. M. Sutton. N degrees of separation: multi-dimensional separation of concerns. In Proceedings of the 1999 international conference on Software engineering May 16-22, 1999, Los Angeles, CA USA, pages107-119, 1999.
9. Joaquin Miller, Jishnu Mukerji.MDA. Guide Version 1.0.1.2003. OMG.www.omg.org/docs/omg/03-06-01.pdf
10. Siobhan Clarke. Extending standard UML with model composition semantics. Science of Computer Programming, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp. 71-100.Elsevier Science, July 2002.
11. Jianxiong Pang, Lynne Blair. An Adaptive Run Time Manager for the Dynamic Integration and Interaction Resolution of Features. ICDCS Workshops 2002: 445-450
12. Jim Coplien, Neil Harrison, http://www.easycomp.org/cgi-bin/OrgPatterns, August 2001.
13. Holger Giese, Matthias Tichy, Sven Burmester, Stephan Flake. Towards the compositional verification of real-time UML designs. ESEC / SIGSOFT FSE 2003: 38-47
14. Jorn Bettin, 2004, Model-Driven Software Development: An emerging paradigm for industrialized software asset development, http://www.softmetaware. com/mdsd-and-isad.pdf
15. Model-Driven Software Development, http://www.mdsd.info
16. Mary Sletvold. Thomas Gran. Grete Nystuen. Optimizing the development process. http://roots.dnd.no/downloads/2003/Sletvold_Mary/ Optimizing_the_Development_Process.pdf
17. Peter P. Chen: The Entity-Relationship Model - Toward a Unified View of Data. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 1(1): 9-36 (1976)