Just to have one example, I set up a G+ page on some 2012 conferences on software related subjects.

The name of the page is +Conferences.
Here is the link.
If you see one conference that should be added, please send me a note.

An MDE tool is a tool that uses at the same time metamodeling and model transformation to achieve some automation goal in the production, maintenance or operation of software-intensive systems.

There are many ways to use metamodeling or model transformations.

Why did MDE miss the boat?

Below is the abstract of the talk I gave to the second Brazilian Workshop on Model Driven Software Development http://reuse.cos.ufrj.br/wbdsdm2011/

Why did MDE miss the boat?

Models have failed, at least temporarily. Model Driven Engineering (MDE) is a specific branch of software modeling that has been experimented for less than two decades. One of its best known instantiation is the MDA™ initiative launched in November 2000 by the OMG. The deployment of MDE seems today to have reached a standstill. In spite of the immense hopes that greeted the MDA initial proposal as a possible way to regenerate the entire software engineering practices, we must recognize today that its impact is rather limited and its perspectives quite confined. We consequently propose the view that the current iteration may not be the last one. This piece of technology may need an additional cycle to mature and produce maximum impact. This presentation will summarize the important lessons learnt in the current iteration and examine some of the difficulties that may have hampered a wider adoption. Among these difficulties some loose or contradictory goals will be discussed as well as the ambiguous relation between programming languages and modeling languages. At a time when software engineering is being much questioned – not only in its operation but also in its essence – we may consider the necessary adaptation of MDE not as a failure, but as a chance for the future. To this purpose we need to reflect on the past and select the good set of properties and practices that will, in the medium to long-term, allow MDE to play a central role to produce, maintain and operate software based systems. Knowing the reasons of the temporary failure of MDE may be as important as assessing the progresses made in this area in the past twenty years.

We may deal with solutions to various problems in software. These solutions, at various levels of achievement, may be considered in different ways. It is interesting to clearly distinguish the the three main branches or levels for managing software: representation, reasoning, and execution. We can have representation only. When we have reasoning or execution, this is based on a given representation.

1. Representation.  Pure representation may be used for rendering of the information on external devices for independent external interpretation.
2. Reasoning. Reasoning is based on a given representation. It is mainly a process of questions and answers. For example one may wish to get the static call matrix for the methods of a program.
3. Execution. Execution may be seen as the strongest form of operation on a given represention. The most known situation is program execution where the program usually corresponds to a  tree representation. The classical public static void main allows to give all information for launching the program to the virtual machine.

Between the levels of Reasoning and Execution, we may find some intermediate specific forms, for example animation, operationalization or enactment. Operationalization is the process of defining a fuzzy concept so as to make the concept measurable  and to understand it in terms of empirical observations.  The term enactment corresponds to the situation when people act they bring structures and events into existence and set them in action.

Follow @atanaka@atanaka
Akira Tanaka

@JBezivin How about this? http://goo.gl/374Sk

December 20, 2010 8:31 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite

The lesson I draw from this data is that “model driven engineering” and “service engineering” are approximately following the same increase rate.

But I am also impressed by the important grow of the “enterprise architecture” subject.

Of course this is only one of the possible indicators of technology adoption, just only one.

Thanks Akira

Among the multiple attempts of Microsoft to propose a general modeling approach, the Uml proposal is probably one of the less known. It bears nevertheless a lot of interesting lessons. It is part of OIM (Open Information model).

Uml is not UML. Uml (capital U, small m, small l) was the Microsoft equivalent of the OMG UML 1.0. It was a very interesting Microsoft tentative to provide a coordinated set of Modeling Languages. The simplied chart shows the main organization:

These DSLs corresponds to the following subject areas:

• Umx Uml Extension Model. A set of generic extensions to the Uml model, and a realization of some of the predefined stereotypes in UML v.1.0.
• Dtm Data Type Model. A set of Uml model extensions that supply numerous common data types.
• Cde Component Description Model. A set of generic component-related Uml model extensions describing run-time (executable) components and their specifications.
• Com COM (Component Object Model) Model. A set of COM-specific extensions to the Cde and Dtm models.
• Gen Generic Model. A set of general-purpose interfaces, relevant across diverse information models.
• Dbm Database Model. A set of extensions to the Uml model covering generic database concepts.
• Sql SQL Server Model. A set of SQL Server-specific extensions to the Dbm model.
• Ocl Oracle Model. A set of Oracle-specific extensions to the Dbm model.
• Db2 DB2 Model. A set of DB2-specific extensions to the Dbm model.
• Ifx Informix Model. A set of Informix-specific extensions to the Dbm model.
• Tfm Database Transformation Model. Describes transformations for moving data between databases.
• Olp OLAP Model. An extension of the Dbm model describing multidimensional databases.
• Sim Semantic Model. An extension of the Dbm model that enables users to interact with database data without learning data manipulation languages.

The global organization could be described as follows:

As we see, the role of the OMG MOF was taken by the RTIM.

RTIM Repository Type Information Model  is the metametamodel – the language in which the other information models (or metamodels) are defined.

The organization of these various DSLs was intended to facilitate the global handling of information systems at the modeling level:

Let’s do a small zoom on the Cde metamodel. This more or less corresponds to the OMG CCM (Corba Model of Component), a 600+ pages recommendation document:

Among the interesting properties of this metamodel, an explicit representation of pre and post conditions:

Another interesting property of this metamodel is the management of events:

Cde defines a specific interface called ICdeEventSourceSpec for objects that are the source of events. This allows both component specifications, interfaces, and other objects to be event sources by supporting this interface. In Com, it is component specifications (Com class specifications) that are event sources. In Corba, interfaces are event sources.

The Cde covers one particular event scheme, where an event is represented as an operation on an interface, and where the parameters of the operation provide data about the event. Many events can be defined on a single interface. The events can be raised in different ways:

• In push models the interface defining the events is implemented on different objects than the object raising the event. The raiser then invokes an operation on those other objects as a means of signaling the event. Such consumers will have registered interest with the raiser in component model specific ways.
• In pull models the interface defining the events is implemented by the event raiser. A consumer invokes an operation on that interface to poll for the event.

There are still many references to the Microsoft repository System, like the following:

• http://publications.nr.no/omni-01-00-msrepository.pdf
• http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc164144.aspx

The standard serialization format for models is not XMI, but XIF (for XML Interchange Format):

• http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa972323(v=SQL.80).aspx

Of particular interest to many of us also is the Transformation Metamodel TFM:

Of course, one name is behind most of these activities: Phil Bernstein, the leader of the model management group:

• http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/philbe/

So the interesting question is “what happened to this OIM project?”.  Dit it get discarded like the recent Oslo project?

What I remember is the following, but I may be wrong:

1. The OIM is quite successful. Because of the strong database bias and high skills of the group, the underlying model repository scales up much better than current modern modeling systems.
2. Microsoft defines a strategy consisting in putting the OIM initiative in the open by donating all the technology to the MetaData Coalition, a non for profit organization
3. The MetaData Coalition accepts the Microsoft donation
4. The MetaData Coalition and the OMG establish cooperative relationship [April 20, 1999].
5. The Metadata coalition merges into the OMG and discontinue independent operation [September 25, 2000]

This story of the first attempted Microsoft approach to modeling is partially recorded at:

• http://xml.coverpages.org/mdc-oim.html

Interesting reading:

• http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa224785(SQL.80).aspx
• http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.35.3015&rep=rep1&type=ps

Legacy modernization has a very high cost tag. In many situations the price of modernization is completely discouraging.

As a thread of discussion on Twitter, @tk300 suggests a disciplined attitude to limit the problem:

Follow @tk300@tk300
Tobias Kuipers

.@JBezivin Have as little code as possible, in as few mainstream technologies as possible. That's how you limit, not prevent, legacy.

November 24, 2010 12:04 am via Tweetie for MacReplyRetweetFavorite

But this applies only to new legacy, not the one that has already been produced in RPG,COBOL, ADA, PL/1, HTML or even Java?

And even if we decide to follow this advice, this probably means that we should also stop innovation?

May be we could think of new techniques that will produce software easy to evolve or to recycle?

Model Driven Day, the french main meeting on Model Driven Engineering

Each european country has its own specificities when it comes to adopting new technologies and new practices in the IT domain. It may be interesting to compare how model driven engineering (MDE, MDA, MDD, DDD, etc.) has been gaining recognition in various parts of the world in the last ten years. If we look at different indicators (events, companies claiming to work on the subject, participants to international conference like Eclipse Summit Europe, etc.), several countries are quite active in the domain. I will give special recognition to Germany and Spain, but UK, France, Austria, or Netherlands are also quite active. What is remarkable is that the form that the deployment of software modeling practices takes in different places are not always the same. In Germany for example it seems that MDE applied to embedded systems is a priority and in France the application of MDE to information systems is more apparent although there are also some interesting projects in embedded systems. As a trace of this, a typical french event is taking place this week in Paris, the Model Driven Day (MDDay). This year like last year, registrations are closed and they are waiting for a record number of participants. The meeting will take place this Thursday at the new Microsoft Conference Center in Issy-les-Moulineaux. It is organized by several french companies that have been active in MDE in the past years:

The program will start with a guest talk by Steve Cook and terminate with a panel with Laurent Bossavit, Jean-Pierre Mevel, Xavier Warzee, Philippe Desfray and Pascal Roques, all leading people in France on software modeling. Needless to say that everybody is eagerly waiting for Steve Cook introductory presentation. The emphasis this year is on the synergy between agile and model driven approaches. But there will also be a presentation of the overall Microsoft approaches to modeling.

The interesting format of this one-day conference on MDE is that companies involved in software modeling will present one aspect of their skills and will have one of their customer testifying about the deployment of MDE.

This year the following talks will take place:

• Compatibility between MDE and agility (on the path of Domain Driven Design) by Object Direct and ADIXE.
• Organization of an important Model Driven Project by Objecteering and DCNS
• MDE at the service of Agility by W4 and the state of Geneva
• Reconciliating software developers with real Model Driven approaches MIA-Software and the BRIT Air company
• Framework interoperability in large system engineering by SODIUS and EADS
• Agile MDA, pragmatic and executable, by SoftFluent and SPEIG
• A survey of Microsoft modeling initiatives by Microsoft and SOGETI
• Model-based Agile development with PMF for Windows Phone 7 applications by Microsoft and SOGETI
• Migration of Statefull Fat-Client applications ona JEE/SpringWebFlowJSF stack at a central bank by JAXIO and Banque de France
• Building a registry for insurance products by the WYMIWYG approach (What You Modelize Is What You Get) by OBEO and CAP GEMINI
• Examples of MDA modernization of Applications – Case studies COBOL2J2EE and Natstar2J2EE with BluAge Reverse by BluAge and the SOPRA Group.

This MDDay even has been organized since 2007 and all presentations from previous years are available in ZIP/PDF or RAR/PDF format (unfortunately most of them in french):

• 2009 (Format ZIP/PDF) : MDDay_2009.zip (35 Mo)
• 2009 (Format RAR/PDF) : MDDay_2009.rar (35 Mo)
• 2008 (Format RAR/PDF) : MDDay_2008.rar (34 Mo)
• 2008 (Format ZIP/PDF) : MDDay_2008.zip (44 Mo)
• 2007 (Format ZIP/PDF) : MDDay_2007.zip (25 Mo)

Due to a big success, the registration are closed, but one may ask to be added to the waiting list by mail to info@mdday.fr

Co-located with TOOLS Europe 2011, the International Conference on Model Transformation will take place in Zurich – Switzerland, 27 – 28 June 2011

The call for paper is out:

Overview

Modelling is a key element in reducing the complexity of software systems during their development and maintenance. Model transformations are essential for elevating models from documentation elements to first-class artifacts of the development process. Model transformation includes model-to-text transformation to generate code from models, text-to-model transformations to parse textual representations to model representations, model extraction to derive higher-level models from legacy code, and model-to-model transformations to normalize, weave, optimize, and refactor models, as well as to translate between modeling languages.

Model transformation encompasses a variety of technical spaces, including modelware, grammarware, and XML-ware, a variety of transformation representations including graphs, trees, and DAGs, and a variety of transformation paradigms including rule-based graph transformation, term rewriting, and implementations in general-purpose programming languages.

The study of model transformation includes foundations, semantics, structuring mechanisms, and properties (such as modularity, composability, and parameterization) of transformations, transformation languages, techniques and tools. An important goal of the field is the development of high-level declarative model transformation languages, providing model representations of transformations that are amenable to ’higher-order’ model transformation. To achieve impact on software engineering practice, tools and methodologies to integrate model transformation into existing development environments and processes are required. ICMT is the premier forum for the presentation of contributions that advance the state-of-the-art in the field of model transformation and aims to bring together researchers from all areas of model transformation.

Topics

Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

Transformation paradigms and languages

• graph rewriting, tree rewriting, attribute grammars
• rule-based, declarative, imperative, functional
• textual, graphical
• pattern matching
• transformation by example
• modularity, reusability, and composition
• comparison of transformation languages
• theoretical foundations

Transformation algorithms and strategies

• model representations: graphs, dags, trees
• bidirectional transformation
• incremental transformation
• scalability
• optimization
• termination and confluence
• higher-order transformation
• evolution of transformations

Implementation and tools

• design of transformations and transformation languages
• verification, validation and testing of transformations

Applications and case studies

• refactoring
• aspect weaving
• model comparison, differencing and merging
• round-trip engineering
• co-evolution of models and meta-models
• reverse engineering (code-to-model)
• code generation by model transformation

Industrial experience reports

Empirical studies

Submission guidelines

All contributions will be subject to a rigorous selection process by the international Program Committee, with an emphasis on originality, practicality and overall quality. Papers should clearly indicate their contributions with respect to previous work. Each paper will be reviewed by at least 3 committee members. All submissions should follow the LNCS format and should include the authors’ names, affiliations and contact details. Further instructions for submitting a paper will be available at http://www.model-transformation.org/ICMT2011/.

As in previous editions of ICMT, we intend to publish proceedings in the Springer LNCS series. Moreover, a special issue with a selection of the best papers from the conference will be published in the Journal of Object Technology (JOT).

Important dates

• Abstract submission: 4 February 2011
• Paper submission: 11 February 2011
• Notification of acceptance: 14 March 2011
• Camera-ready version due: 28 March 2011
• Conference dates: 27-28 June 2011

Organization

PC chairs:

• Eelco Visser
• Jordi Cabot

Publicity chair:

• Dimitrios Kolovos

Web chair:

• Davide Di Ruscio

Steering committee:

• Jean Bézivin
• Martin Gogolla
• Jeff Gray
• Richard Paige
• Alfonso Pierantonio
• Antonio Vallecillo
• Laurence Tratt

Program Committee:

• Andy Schürr
• Antonio Cicchetti
• Bernhard Rumpe
• Daniel Varro
• Dennis Wagelaar
• Eric Van Wyk
• Gerti Kappel
• Gregor Engels
• Günter Kniesel
• Hans Vangheluwe
• Ivan Kurtev
• Janis Voigtländer
• Jendrik Johannes
• Jesus Garcia-Molina
• Jim Cordy
• Juan de Lara
• Jurgen Vinju
• Krzysztof Czarnecki
• Marco Brambilla
• Mark van den Brand
• Nate Foster
• Oscar Nierstrasz
• Paolo Atzeni
• Perdita Stevens
• Pieter Van Gorp
• Ralf Laemmel
• Reiko Heckel
• Simon Thompson
• Thomas Kuehne
• Tony Clark
• Zhenjiang Hu