![]() validation constraints, model-to-model and model-to-text transformations, etc.) can query and modify IM models without needing to transform them to an intermediate representation (e.g. In particular, we discuss the design and implementation of an interoperability layer through which Epsilon model management programs (e.g. In this paper, we present the results of collaboration between researchers at the University of York and practitioners at Rolls-Royce, on bridging the gap between a proprietary UML modelling tool, PTC Integrity Modeller (IM), which is used extensively at Rolls-Royce to support MBSE activities, and the open-source Epsilon family of model management languages ( ), which is driven by MBSE research primarily conducted at the University of York and Ashton University. Any proposed solution should perform as fast as the built-in model management scripting interface (or as close as possible to that). In addition, the challenges of such an attempt include the potential need of bridging different technologies which might have an impact in the time required to execute the model management tasks. The risks associated with this transition may be very high, especially if the legacy model has been used to develop safety critical software that has undergone safety assessment as part of certification. Companies may see the need to eventual transition from proprietary tools to open-source modelling and model management tools, in order to reduce costs or use state-of-the-art MBSE technologies. In addition, enterprise users are restricted to use only built-in model analysis and management facilities provided by the modelling tool. This is clearly detrimental to both enterprise users, who are often unable to readily exploit recent advances in MBSE research, and to researchers, who would benefit from the feedback of enterprise users on the use of research outcomes in industrial-scale applications. This technological gap means that research outcomes are more often than not largely inaccessible to enterprise users. By contrast, the majority of research in Model-Based Software Engineering (MBSE) is conducted using open-source modelling tools and frameworks (e.g. Large enterprises often use proprietary and closed-source software and system modelling tools, such as MagicDraw , Rhapsody and Enterprise Architect as these come with extensive documentation and are backed by commercial vendors offering guaranteed maintenance and support. In addition, we use the bridge in a real-world industrial case study that involves the coordination with other bridges between proprietary tools and Epsilon. We present the architecture of our solution, the challenges we encountered in developing it, and a performance comparison against the tool’s built-in scripting interface. In this paper, we discuss an attempt to bridge a proprietary UML modelling tool (PTC Integrity Modeller), which is used for model-based development of safety-critical systems at Rolls-Royce, with an open-source family of languages for automated model management (Epsilon). ![]() ![]() This technical gap can prohibit industrial users from reaping the benefits of state-of-the-art research-based tools in their practice. The report, which will be in a spreadsheet format, will provide a page of information for each of the (currently) 16 tests of the MIWG test suite.While the majority of research on Model-Based Software Engineering revolves around open-source modelling frameworks such as the Eclipse Modelling Framework, the use of commercial and closed-source modelling tools such as RSA, Rhapsody, MagicDraw and Enterprise Architect appears to be the norm in industry at present. In the new method, a user will select a tool from among those participating in the MIWG, and receive a report summarizing the interoperability concerns identified in the testing of that tool. The new method will reduce the effort required to run tests and it will provide a very different perspective on the results of testing. To address the needs of typical tool users, we have begun development of a new method of reporting results from interoperability testing. Due to this focus, it isn't always easy for the typical tool user to determine, through use of the Validator, the prospects for interoperability of tools he is considering. Currently, the NIST Validator tools are targeted for use by the tool vendor participants of the MIWG – the tools are focused on helping the vendors fix problems in interoperability.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |