Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
110 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

A Vision for Flexibile GLSP-based Web Modeling Tools (2307.01352v1)

Published 3 Jul 2023 in cs.SE

Abstract: In the past decade, the modeling community has produced many feature-rich modeling editors and tool prototypes not only for modeling standards but particularly also for many domain-specific languages. More recently, however, web-based modeling tools have started to become increasingly popular for visualizing and editing models adhering to such languages in the industry. This new generation of modeling tools is built with web technologies and offers much more flexibility when it comes to their user experience, accessibility, reuse, and deployment options. One of the technologies behind this new generation of tools is the Graphical Language Server Platform (GLSP), an open-source client-server framework hosted under the Eclipse foundation, which allows tool providers to build modern diagram editors for modeling tools that run in the browser or can be easily integrated into IDEs such as Eclipse, VS Code, or Eclipse Theia. In this paper, we describe our vision of more flexible modeling tools which is based on our experiences from developing several GLSP-based modeling tools. With that, we aim at sparking a new line of research and innovation in the modeling community for modeling tool development practices and to explore opportunities, advantages, or limitations of web-based modeling tools, as well as bridge the gap between scientific tool prototypes and industrial tools being used in practice.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (35)
  1. S. Kelly, K. Lyytinen, and M. Rossi, “Metaedit+: A fully configurable multi-user and multi-tool CASE and CAME environment,” in Advances Information System Engineering, 8th International Conference, CAiSE’96, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, May 20-24, 1996, Proceedings, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, P. Constantopoulos, J. Mylopoulos, and Y. Vassiliou, Eds., vol. 1080.   Springer, 1996, pp. 1–21.
  2. M. Jarke, R. Gallersdörfer, M. A. Jeusfeld, and M. Staudt, “Conceptbase - A deductive object base for meta data management,” J. Intell. Inf. Syst., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 167–192, 1995.
  3. H. Ossher, A. van der Hoek, M. D. Storey, J. Grundy, and R. K. E. Bellamy, “Flexible modeling tools (flexitools2010),” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 2, ICSE 2010, Cape Town, South Africa, 1-8 May 2010, J. Kramer, J. Bishop, P. T. Devanbu, and S. Uchitel, Eds.   ACM, 2010, pp. 441–442.
  4. R. Rodríguez-Echeverría, J. L. C. Izquierdo, M. Wimmer, and J. Cabot, “An LSP infrastructure to build EMF language servers for web-deployable model editors,” in Proceedings of MODELS 2018 Workshops, ser. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, R. Hebig and T. Berger, Eds., vol. 2245.   CEUR-WS.org, 2018, pp. 326–335.
  5. ——, “Towards a language server protocol infrastructure for graphical modeling,” in Proceedings of the 21th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MODELS 2018, Copenhagen, Denmark, October 14-19, 2018, A. Wasowski, R. F. Paige, and Ø. Haugen, Eds.   ACM, 2018, pp. 370–380.
  6. H. Bünder, “Decoupling language and editor-the impact of the language server protocol on textual domain-specific languages.” in MODELSWARD, 2019, pp. 129–140.
  7. “Microsoft language server protocol implementations,” https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/implementors/servers/, accessed: 23.04.2021.
  8. “Microsoft language server protocol specification,” https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/specifications/specification-current/, accessed: 23.04.2021.
  9. Philip Langer, “Towards a graphical language server protocol for diagrams?, eclipsecon 2018,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snb1UTSH3Zw, accessed: 10.05.2022.
  10. Eclipse Foundation, “Eclipse graphical language server platform,” https://github.com/eclipse-glsp/glsp, accessed: 10.05.2022.
  11. L. M. Rose, D. S. Kolovos, and R. F. Paige, “Eugenia live: a flexible graphical modelling tool,” in Proceedings of the 2012 Extreme Modeling Workshop, XM ’12, Innsbruck, Austria, October 1, 2012, D. D. Ruscio, A. Pierantonio, and J. de Lara, Eds.   ACM, 2012, pp. 15–20.
  12. E. Guerra and J. de Lara, “On the quest for flexible modelling,” in Proceedings of the 21th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MODELS 2018, Copenhagen, Denmark, October 14-19, 2018, A. Wasowski, R. F. Paige, and Ø. Haugen, Eds.   ACM, 2018, pp. 23–33.
  13. D. Bork and S. Alter, “Satisfying four requirements for more flexible modeling methods: Theory and test case,” Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Archit. Int. J. Concept. Model., vol. 15, pp. 3:1–3:25, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.18417/emisa.15.3
  14. G. Gabrysiak, H. Giese, A. Lüders, and A. Seibel, “How can metamodels be used flexibly,” in Proceedings of ICSE 2011 workshop on flexible modeling tools, Waikiki/Honolulu, vol. 22, 2011.
  15. D. Harel and B. Rumpe, “Modeling languages: Syntax, semantics and all that stuff - Part I: The Basic Stuff,” Technical report, Tech. Rep., 2000. [Online]. Available: \url{http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.10.1512}
  16. Z. Zarwin, J.-S. Sottet, and J.-M. Favre, “Natural modeling: retrospective and perspectives an anthropological point of view,” in Proceedings of the 2012 Extreme Modeling Workshop.   ACM, 2012, pp. 3–8.
  17. P. Glaser and D. Bork, “The biger tool - hybrid textual and graphical modeling of entity relationships in VS code,” in 25th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop, EDOC Workshop 2021, Gold Coast, Australia, October 25-29, 2021.   IEEE, 2021, pp. 337–340.
  18. I. David, M. Latifaj, J. Pietron, W. Zhang, F. Ciccozzi, I. Malavolta, A. Raschke, J. Steghöfer, and R. Hebig, “Blended modeling in commercial and open-source model-driven software engineering tools: A systematic study,” Softw. Syst. Model., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 415–447, 2023.
  19. K. Sandkuhl, H. Fill, S. Hoppenbrouwers, J. Krogstie, F. Matthes, A. L. Opdahl, G. Schwabe, Ö. Uludag, and R. Winter, “From expert discipline to common practice: A vision and research agenda for extending the reach of enterprise modeling,” Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng., vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 69–80, 2018.
  20. D. Wüest, N. Seyff, and M. Glinz, “Flexisketch: a lightweight sketching and metamodeling approach for end-users,” Softw. Syst. Model., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1513–1541, 2019.
  21. C. Atkinson and R. Gerbig, “Flexible deep modeling with melanee,” in Modellierung 2016, 2.-4. März 2016, Karlsruhe - Workshopband, ser. LNI, S. Betz and U. Reimer, Eds., vol. P-255.   GI, 2016, pp. 117–122. [Online]. Available: https://dl.gi.de/20.500.12116/843
  22. K. Smolander, K. Lyytinen, V. Tahvanainen, and P. Marttiin, “Metaedit - A flexible graphical environment for methodology modelling,” in Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE’91, Trondheim, Norway, May 13-15, 1991, Proceedings, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, R. Andersen, J. A. B. Jr., and A. Sølvberg, Eds., vol. 498.   Springer, 1991, pp. 168–193.
  23. S. Abrahão, F. Bourdeleau, B. Cheng, S. Kokaly, R. Paige, H. Stöerrle, and J. Whittle, “User experience for model-driven engineering: Challenges and future directions,” in 2017 ACM/IEEE 20th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), 2017, pp. 229–236.
  24. G. D. Carlo, P. Langer, and D. Bork, “Rethinking model representation - A taxonomy of advanced information visualization in conceptual modeling,” in Conceptual Modeling - 41st International Conference, ER 2022, Hyderabad, India, 2022, Proceedings, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, J. Ralyté, S. Chakravarthy, M. K. Mohania, M. A. Jeusfeld, and K. Karlapalem, Eds., vol. 13607.   Springer, 2022, pp. 35–51.
  25. ——, “Advanced visualization and interaction in glsp-based web modeling: realizing semantic zoom and off-screen elements,” in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MODELS 2022, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2022, E. Syriani, H. A. Sahraoui, N. Bencomo, and M. Wimmer, Eds.   ACM, 2022, pp. 221–231.
  26. P. Pourali and J. M. Atlee, “An empirical investigation to understand the difficulties and challenges of software modellers when using modelling tools,” in Proceedings of the 21th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MODELS 2018, A. Wasowski, R. F. Paige, and Ø. Haugen, Eds.   ACM, 2018, pp. 224–234.
  27. A. Lanusse, Y. Tanguy, H. Espinoza, C. Mraidha, S. Gerard, P. Tessier, R. Schnekenburger, H. Dubois, and F. Terrier, “Papyrus uml: an open source toolset for mda,” in Proc. of the Fifth European Conference on Model-Driven Architecture Foundations and Applications (ECMDA-FA 2009).   Citeseer, 2009, pp. 1–4.
  28. M. Fumagalli, T. P. Sales, and G. Guizzardi, “Pattern discovery in conceptual models using frequent itemset mining,” in Conceptual Modeling: 41st International Conference, ER 2022, Hyderabad, India, October 17–20, 2022, Proceedings.   Springer, 2022, pp. 52–62.
  29. R. Rubei, J. Di Rocco, D. Di Ruscio, P. T. Nguyen, and A. Pierantonio, “A lightweight approach for the automated classification and clustering of metamodels,” in 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion (MODELS-C).   IEEE, 2021, pp. 477–482.
  30. J. A. H. López, R. Rubei, J. S. Cuadrado, and D. Di Ruscio, “Machine learning methods for model classification: a comparative study,” in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, 2022, pp. 165–175.
  31. L. Burgueño, R. Clarisó, S. Gérard, S. Li, and J. Cabot, “An nlp-based architecture for the autocompletion of partial domain models,” in Advanced Information Systems Engineering: 33rd International Conference, CAiSE 2021, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, June 28–July 2, 2021, Proceedings.   Springer, 2021, pp. 91–106.
  32. G. M. Lahijany, M. Ohrndorf, J. Zenkert, M. Fathi, and U. Kelte, “Identibug: Model-driven visualization of bug reports by extracting class diagram excerpts,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC).   IEEE, 2021, pp. 3317–3323.
  33. M. Fumagalli, T. P. Sales, and G. Guizzardi, “Towards automated support for conceptual model diagnosis and repair,” in Advances in Conceptual Modeling: ER 2020 Workshops CMAI, CMLS, CMOMM4FAIR, CoMoNoS, EmpER, Vienna, Austria, November 3–6, 2020, Proceedings 39.   Springer, 2020, pp. 15–25.
  34. L. Burgueno, J. Cabot, S. Li, and S. Gérard, “A generic lstm neural network architecture to infer heterogeneous model transformations,” Software and Systems Modeling, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 139–156, 2022.
  35. G. Mussbacher, B. Combemale, J. Kienzle, S. Abrahão, H. Ali, N. Bencomo, M. Búr, L. Burgueño, G. Engels, P. Jeanjean, J. Jézéquel, T. Kühn, S. Mosser, H. A. Sahraoui, E. Syriani, D. Varró, and M. Weyssow, “Opportunities in intelligent modeling assistance,” Softw. Syst. Model., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 1045–1053, 2020.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (3)
  1. Dominik Bork (5 papers)
  2. Philip Langer (1 paper)
  3. Tobias Ortmayr (1 paper)
Citations (3)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now