Toward Intelligent Generation of Tailored Graphical Concrete Syntax
Authors: 
Meriem Ben Chaaben, 
Oussama Ben Sghaier, Mouna Dhaouadi, Nafisa Elrasheed, Ikram Darif, Imen Jaoua, 
Bentley Oakes, 
Eugene Syriani, 
Mohammad HamdaqaAuthors Info & Claims
Meriem Ben Chaaben, Oussama Ben Sghaier, Mouna Dhaouadi, Nafisa Elrasheed, Ikram Darif, Imen Jaoua, Bentley Oakes, Eugene Syriani, Mohammad HamdaqaAuthors Info & ClaimsPages 160 - 171
Abstract
In model-driven engineering, the concrete syntax of a domain-specific modeling language (DSML) is fundamental as it constitutes the primary point of interaction between the user and the DSML. Nevertheless, the conventional one-size-fits-all approach to concrete syntax often undermines the effectiveness of DSMLs, as it fails to accommodate the diverse constraints and specific requirements inherent to diverse users and usage contexts. Such shortcomings can lead to a significant decline in the performance, usability, and efficiency of DSMLs. This vision paper proposes a conceptual framework to generate concrete syntax intelligently. Our framework considers multiple concerns of users and aims to align the concrete syntax with the context of the DSML usage. Additionally, we detail a baseline process to employ our framework in practice, leveraging large language models to expedite the generation of tailored concrete syntax. We illustrate the potential of our vision with two concrete examples and discuss the shortcomings and research challenges of current intelligent generation techniques.
References
[1]
L. Almonte et al. 2021. Automating the synthesis of recommender systems for modelling languages. In Software Language Engineering. 22--35.
[2]
D. Amyot, H. Farah, and J. Roy. 2006. Evaluation of development tools for domain-specific modeling languages. In System Analysis and Modeling.
[3]
I. Arawjo et al. 2023. ChainForge: A Visual Toolkit for Prompt Engineering and LLM Hypothesis Testing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.09128 (2023).
[4]
S. Arulmohan, M. Meurs, and S. Mosser. 2023. Extracting domain models from textual requirements in the era of large language models. In Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion. IEEE, 580--587.
[5]
T. Baar. 2008. Correctly defined concrete syntax. Software & Systems Modeling 7 (2008), 383--398.
[6]
B. Barricelli et al. 2019. End-user development, end-user programming and end-user software engineering: A systematic mapping study. Journal of Systems and Software 149 (2019), 101--137.
[7]
A. Blouin et al. 2014. Slicing-Based Techniques for Visualizing Large Metamodels. In Working Conference on Software Visualization. 25--29.
[8]
A. Blouin et al. 2015. Assessing the use of slicing-based visualizing techniques on the understanding of large metamodels. Information and Software Technology 62 (2015), 124--142.
[9]
M. B. Chaaben, L. Burgueño, and H. Sahraoui. 2023. Towards using few-shot prompt learning for automating model completion. In International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results. IEEE, 7--12.
[10]
S. Chakraborty and G. Liebel. 2024. Modelling guidance in software engineering: a systematic literature review. Software & Systems Modeling 23, 1 (2024), 249--265.
[11]
K. Chen et al. 2023. Automated Domain Modeling with Large Language Models: A Comparative Study. In Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. IEEE, 162--172.
[12]
H. Cho, J. Gray, and E. Syriani. 2012. SyntaxMap: A Modeling Language for Capturing Requirements of Graphical DSML. In Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, Vol. 1. IEEE, 705--708.
[13]
S. Costa et al. 2021. Ontologies in human-computer interaction: A systematic literature review. Applied Ontology 16, 4 (2021), 421--452.
[14]
D. Deeptimahanti and R. Sanyal. 2011. Semi-automatic generation of UML models from natural language requirements. In India Software Engineering Conference. 165--174.
[15]
K. D. Dhole, R. Chandradevan, and E. Agichtein. 2023. An interactive query generation assistant using LLM-based prompt modification and user feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11226 (2023).
[16]
S. Ekin. 2023. Prompt engineering for ChatGPT: A quick guide to techniques, tips, and best practices. Authorea Preprints (2023).
[17]
Frédéric Fondement. 2007. Concrete syntax definition for modeling languages. Ph.D. thesis. Ecole Polytechnique de Lausanne.
[18]
F. Fondement and T. Baar. 2005. Making Metamodels Aware of Concrete Syntax. In Model Driven Architecture - Foundations and Applications. Springer, 190--204.
[19]
W. O. Galitz. 2007. The Essential Guide to User Interface Design: An Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques. Number 3rd Edition. Wiley.
[20]
T R G Green. 1989. Cognitive Dimensions of Notations. In People and Computers V. British Computer Society Workshop Series, 443--460.
[21]
Fill Hans-Georg, Peter Fettke, and Juluis Köpke. 2023. Conceptual Modeling and Large Language Models: Impressions From First Experiments With ChatGPT. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures 18, 3 (2023), 1--15.
[22]
D. Harel and B. Rumpe. 2004. Meaningful Modeling: What's the Semantics of "Semantics"? IEEE Computer 37, 10 (2004), 64--72. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2004.172
[23]
Z. Hu et al. 2023. Unlocking the Potential of User Feedback: Leveraging Large Language Model as User Simulator to Enhance Dialogue System. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09821 (2023).
[24]
S. Karim and A. Tjoa. 2006. Towards the use of ontologies for improving user interaction for people with special needs. In International Conference on Computers for Handicapped Persons. Springer, 77--84.
[25]
S. Kelly, K. Lyytinen, and M. Rossi. 1996. Metaedit+ a fully configurable multi-user and multi-tool case and came environment. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering: 8th International Conference, CAiSE'96 Heraklion, Crete, Greece, May 20-24, 1996 Proceedings 8. Springer, 1--21.
[26]
T. Khot et al. 2022. Decomposed prompting: A modular approach for solving complex tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02406 (2022).
[27]
D. S. Kolovos et al. 2010. Taming EMF and GMF using model transformation. In Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. Springer, 211--225.
[28]
T. Kosar, S. Bohra, and M. Mernik. 2016. Domain-specific languages: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology 71 (2016), 77--91.
[29]
S. Kuhar and G. Polancic. 2021. Conceptualization, measurement, and application of semantic transparency in visual notations. Software & Systems Modeling 20 (2021), 2155--2197.
[30]
T. Kühne. 2006. Matters of (Meta-)Modeling. Software & Systems Modeling 5, 4 (2006), 369--385.
[31]
S. K. Lahiri et al. 2022. Interactive code generation via test-driven user-intent formalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.05950 (2022).
[32]
H. Lee et al. 2023. Rlaif: Scaling reinforcement learning from human feedback with ai feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00267 (2023).
[33]
P. Lewis et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 9459--9474.
[34]
B. Li et al. 2023. Eliciting human preferences with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11589 (2023).
[35]
L. Luque et al. 2014. Can we work together? on the inclusion of blind people in uml model-based tasks. In Inclusive Designing: Joining Usability, Accessibility, and Inclusion. Springer, 223--233.
[36]
G. Marcus, E. Davis, and S. Aaronson. 2022. A very preliminary analysis of DALL-E 2. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.13807 (2022).
[37]
B. Mariño et al. 2018. Accessibility and activity-centered design for ICT users: ACCESIBILITIC ontology. IEEE Access 6 (2018), 60655--60665.
[38]
O. Metatla, N. Bryan-Kinns, and T. Stockman. 2008. Constructing relational diagrams in audio: the multiple perspective hierarchical approach. In Computers and accessibility. 97--104.
[39]
D. Moody. 2009. The "Physics" of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35, 6 (2009), 756--779.
[40]
F. Mu et al. 2023. ClarifyGPT: Empowering LLM-based Code Generation with Intention Clarification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10996 (2023).
[41]
P. Muller, P. Studer, and J. Jézéquel. 2004. Model-driven generative approach for concrete syntax composition. In OOPSLA Workshop on Best Practices for Model-Driven Development.
[42]
B. A. Nardi and C. L. Zarmer. 1993. Beyond models and metaphors: Visual formalisms in user interface design. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 4, 1 (1993), 5--33.
[43]
B. Nastov and F. Pfister. 2014. Experimentation of a Graphical Concrete Syntax Generator for Domain Specific Modeling Languages. In INFORSID. 197--213.
[44]
A. Pescador and J. de Lara. 2016. DSL-maps: from requirements to design of domain-specific languages. In Automated Software Engineering. 438--443.
[45]
A. Rahimi et al. 2023. Towards Generating Structurally Realistic Models by Generative Adversarial Networks. In Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion. IEEE, 597--604.
[46]
Z. Rajaei et al. 2021. A DSL for Encoding Models for Graph-Learning Processes. In Workshop on OCL and Textual Modeling.
[47]
A. Ramesh et al. 2021. Zero-shot text-to-image generation. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 8821--8831.
[48]
I. Ráth, A. Ökrös, and D. Varró. 2010. Synchronization of abstract and concrete syntax in domain-specific modeling languages. Software & Systems Modeling 9 (2010), 453--471.
[49]
K. I Roumeliotis and N. D. Tselikas. 2023. ChatGPT and Open-AI models: A preliminary review. Future Internet 15, 6 (2023), 192.
[50]
A. Sadik, S. Brulin, and M. Olhofer. 2023. Coding by Design: GPT-4 empowers Agile Model Driven Development. Report 2310.04304. arXiv.
[51]
A. Sarioğlu, H. Metin, and D. Bork. 2023. How inclusive is conceptual modeling? A systematic review of literature and tools for disability-aware conceptual modeling. In International Conference on Conceptual Modeling. Springer, 65--83.
[52]
T. Schick and H. Schütze. 2021. Few-Shot Text Generation with Natural Language Instructions. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. ACL, 390--402.
[53]
O. B. Sghaier and H. Sahraoui. 2024. Improving the Learning of Code Review Successive Tasks with Cross-Task Knowledge Distillation. Report 2402.02063. arXiv.
[54]
S. Suh et al. 2023. Sensecape: Enabling multilevel exploration and sensemaking with large language models. In User Interface Software and Technology. 1--18.
[55]
E. Syriani et al. 2013. AToMPM: A web-based modeling environment. In Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, Vol. 1115. CEUR-WS.org, 21--25.
[56]
C. Tinnes et al. 2023. Towards Automatic Support of Software Model Evolution with Large Language~Models. Report 2312.12404. arXiv.
[57]
J. Van Gurp, J. Bosch, and M. Svahnberg. 2001. On the notion of variability in software product lines. In Working Conference on Software Architecture. 45--54.
[58]
Y. Van Tendeloo et al. 2017. Concrete Syntax: A Multi-Paradigm Modelling Approach. In Software Language Engineering. ACM, 182--193.
[59]
V. Viyović, M. Maksimović, and B. Perisić. 2014. Sirius: A rapid development of DSM graphical editor. In Intelligent Engineering Systems. IEEE, 233--238.
[60]
Y. Wang et al. 2020. Generalizing from a few examples: A survey on few-shot learning. Comput. Surveys 53, 3 (2020), 1--34.
[61]
J. Wei et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 24824--24837.
[62]
M. Weyssow, H. Sahraoui, and E. Syriani. 2022. Recommending metamodel concepts during modeling activities with pre-trained language models. Software & Systems Modeling 21, 3 (2022), 1071--1089.
[63]
M. Wolfgang. 2006. Laws of Seeing. MIT Press.
[64]
L. Wouters. 2013. Towards the notation-driven development of DSMLs. In Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, Vol. 16. Springer, 522--537.
[65]
S. Yang and H. Sahraoui. 2022. Towards automatically extracting UML class diagrams from natural language specifications. In Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion Proceedings. 396--403.
[66]
S. Zhang et al. 2023. Instruction Tuning for Large Language Models: A Survey. Report 2308.10792. arXiv.
Recommendations
Syntax Map: A Modeling Language for Capturing Requirements of Graphical DSML
APSEC '12: Proceedings of the 2012 19th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference - Volume 01Domain-specific modeling languages (DSMLs) are designed to model particular domains of interest using graphical, textual, or mixed syntax. Although most met modeling tools offer an environment that automates several language development tasks, there is ...
A component-based approach for specifying DSML's concrete syntax
GMLD '13: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Graphical Modeling Language DevelopmentModel-Driven Engineering (MDE) encourages the use of graphical modeling tools, which facilitate the development process from modeling to coding. Such tools can be designed using the MDE approach into meta-modeling environments called metaCASE tools.
It ...
Concrete syntax: a multi-paradigm modelling approach
SLE 2017: Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language EngineeringDomain-Specific Modelling Languages (DSLs) allow domain experts to create models using abstractions they are most familiar with. A DSL's syntax is specified in two parts: the abstract syntax defines the language's concepts and their allowed ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
September 2024
311 pages
ISBN:9798400705045
DOI:10.1145/3640310
- General Chairs:
- Alexander Egyed,
- Manuel Wimmer,
- Program Chairs:
- Marsha Chechik,
- Benoit Combemale
Copyright © 2024 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
- Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria
- SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering
- IEEE CS
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 22 September 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
MODELS '24
Sponsor:
MODELS '24: ACM/IEEE 27th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems
September 22 - 27, 2024
Linz, Austria
Acceptance Rates
MODELS '24 Paper Acceptance Rate 26 of 124 submissions, 21%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 144 of 506 submissions, 28%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 95Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)95
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)16
Reflects downloads up to 03 Mar 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in