|
Show the graphical metamodel |
Post Reply 
|
| Author | |
iceman 
Major Contributor 
Joined: 19.Jun.2011 Points: 32 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Show the graphical metamodelPosted: 27.Jun.2013 at 10:44 |
|
I am using the form-based tools to create my language. Is is possible to see the meta-model in a graphical form as well as shown in Figure 1.3 in the Family Tree example: http://www.metacase.com/support/45/manuals/evaltut/et-1.html
|
|
 |
|
|
stevek
MetaCase 
Joined: 11.Mar.2008 Points: 643 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 27.Jun.2013 at 12:33 |
|
It would certainly be possible to transform the MXT export of your language into MXM in the graphical GOPRR language. Currently we don't have such a transformation ready, although there was some work and testing internally. The main issue is that the Graphical GOPRR language is deliberately simpler than the full GOPPRR, so there can be things in a metamodel that cannot be represented in Graphical GOPRR.
|
|
|
|
|
iceman
Major Contributor
Joined: 19.Jun.2011 Points: 32 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 27.Jun.2013 at 13:19 |
|
Thanks a lot. What would you suggest as an easy work to represent the concepts of a language in the metamodel? So that I can include it in a report or show in a presentation in a more formalized form.
|
|
|
|
|
stevek
MetaCase
Joined: 11.Mar.2008 Points: 643 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 27.Jun.2013 at 13:47 |
|
It depends on the audience. I've used example models with one instance of each concept, Graphical GOPRR, text/tables, and UML Class Diagrams - roughly in decreasing order of preference.
|
|
|
|
|
iceman
Major Contributor
Joined: 19.Jun.2011 Points: 32 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 27.Jun.2013 at 13:51 |
|
I see. I want to show the language concepts to the practitioners and the language features to the modelers, but I also want a more formalized way to show the concepts of the language independent of the Metaedit workbench tool. I think GOPPRR is a way, but as you said there is no way to extract that information if I have used the form based tools to create the language. Then, how do i export the language concepts formally?
|
|
|
|
|
stevek
MetaCase
Joined: 11.Mar.2008 Points: 643 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 27.Jun.2013 at 14:45 |
|
You can either export to MXT with Types Manager, or use the document:into: command-line parameter to get a textual representation. Like all command-line parameters, document:into: can also be run via the API or MERL, e.g. to export all graph types:
internal 'document:into: * d:\mybasedir' execute
That will create a subdirectory for each graph type, with a file metamodel.txt containing sections for Objects, Bindings etc., and each generator output as a *.rep file. I also find it useful for diffing versions of the metamodel.
|
|
|
|
|
stevek
MetaCase
Joined: 11.Mar.2008 Points: 643 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 27.Jun.2013 at 14:56 |
|
Of course, it's worth asking what you really mean by "formally" and "independent of MetaEdit+". The repository contains the full metamodel, and is the best format for the best tools for examining the metamodel - MetaEdit+ itself. If I wanted to get to know your language, from scratch to a deep knowledge, using MetaEdit+ to look at and instantiate it would be the best way. Similarly, if you want the most precise and formal description, that's the repository.
Static pictures, PDF, HTML or text are the only really tool-independent formats I can think of, and they're not a particularly good way to help people understand beyond the first quick look - or then they require a lot of manual work by you.
There are interesting parallels with natural language: if I want to send you a document in natural language, there are plenty of formats, it's relatively easy to come up with standardised formats, and you can understand simply by reading. But if I want to send you a *language*, things are a lot more difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
iceman
Major Contributor
Joined: 19.Jun.2011 Points: 32 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 27.Jun.2013 at 16:32 |
|
Figure 10.7 in the DSM book for example. It's easy to document and share the knowledge
|
|
|
|
|
jpt
MetaCase
Joined: 25.Mar.2008 Points: 253 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01.Jul.2013 at 16:32 |
|
If you want to specify the metamodels as in the book, you may consider using the graphical metamodeling, see the guide at http://www.metacase.com/support/50/manuals/Graphical%20Metamodeling.pdf
Edited by jpt - 01.Jul.2013 at 16:33 |
|
|
|
|
iceman
Major Contributor
Joined: 19.Jun.2011 Points: 32 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01.Jul.2013 at 16:39 |
|
thanks..yeah. that's what i've been doing now. i started with the form based editor as it's the one in the watch tutorial. but since it's more powerful, its easier to get more complex languages done. the graphical one is better for documentation in the initial stages. but would be nice to have some way to document more complex meta-models other than the modeling language
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
| Tweet |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options