Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[mdt-sbvr.dev] Some thoughts about using the EMF Extension approach in an editing tool

Mark,

 

I’m trying to understand how you see the meta language and the object language represented in a modeling tool with the EMF Extension approach. I assume that the subclasses of EClass correspond to the meta language concepts, and instances of these subclasses correspond to object language concepts or things, i.e. what the user is modeling. Since SBVR is the metamodel, and every entry in SBVR is a concept, this suggests that there will be a subclass of EClass for each SBVR concept. Is this how you see it? For the SBVR concepts that are types of concepts (“concept” and its descendents), an instance is a concept and can itself be instantiated. For all other concepts, the instance is some kind of thing, identified in the tool by a reference scheme for the concept. Since all concepts in SBVR descend from “thing”, won’t it therefore be adequate just to make “thing” alone to descend from EClass? This should work well with the objectification of fact types, as I described in a previous email. Reference schemes will play a very important role. Every SBVR concept will need a reference scheme, even those for which SBVR does not provide one; we will have to provide one for tools to use. We need to discuss how the necessities of SBVR are to be enforced in tools. Will we need to tailor the EMF code generator to process these kinds of models, to generate useful tool user interfaces and persist the models they edit?

 

Stan

 

 


Back to the top