Misconceptions about Potency-Based Deep Instantiation
Pages 810 - 817
Abstract
Multi-level modeling languages differ in their approaches for controlling the properties of model elements over multiple modeling levels. Over the years the original approach for deeply characterizing model elements, the potency-based deep instantiation mechanism, has received a number of criticisms related to its flexibility, level stability, ontological soundness, type safety, and ability to reduce accidental complexity. However, some of these criticisms are founded on misconceptions and thus cannot usefully inform multi-level modeling language designs. In this paper we identify and clarify these misconceptions in order to help guide future considerations of language feature trade-offs and design choices.
References
[1]
Thomas Aschauer, Gerd Dauenhauer, and Wolfgang Pree. 2009. Multi-level modeling for industrial automation systems. In 2009 35th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications. IEEE, New York, USA, 490--496.
[2]
Colin Atkinson, Ralph Gerbig, and Bastian Kennel. 2012. On-the-Fly Emendation of Multi-level Models. In Modelling Foundations and Applications (Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 194--209.
[3]
Colin Atkinson and Thomas Kühne. 2001. The Essence of Multilevel Metamodeling. In UML 2001 --- The Unified Modeling Language. Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools, Martin Gogolla and Cris Kobryn (Eds.). Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 19--33.
[4]
Colin Atkinson and Thomas Kühne. 2002. Rearchitecting the UML Infrastructure. ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simul. 12, 4 (Oct. 2002), 290--321.
[5]
Colin Atkinson, Thomas Kühne, and Brian Henderson-Sellers. 2000. To Meta or Not to Meta - That is the Question. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 13, 8 (Dec. 2000), 32--35.
[6]
Mira Balaban, Igal Khitron, Michael Kifer, and Azzam Maraee. 2018. Multilevel Modeling: What's in a Level? A Position Paper. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Multi-Level Modelling co-located with the 21st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS 2018) (CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. Vol-2245). RWTH, Aachen, Germany, 693--697.
[7]
Mira Balaban, Igal Khitron, and Azzam Maraee. 2022. Accidental complexity in multilevel modeling revisited. Software and Systems Modeling 21, 2 (2022), 517--542.
[8]
Mira Balaban, Michael Kifer, and Azzam Maraee. 2023. Clabject Typing in MLM - the Double Life of a Clabject: A Position Paper. In 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion (MODELS-C). IEEE, New York, USA, 635--638.
[9]
Sándor Bácsi, Arne Lange, Thomas Kühne, Gergely Mezei, and Colin Atkinson. 2021. Melanee and DMLA - A Contribution to the MULTI 2021 Collaborative Comparison Challenge. In Proceedings of MULTI 2021. IEEE, New York, USA, 556--565.
[10]
Victorio A. Carvalho and João Paulo A. Almeida. 2018. Toward a well-founded theory for multi-level conceptual modeling. Software & Systems Modeling 17, 1 (2018), 205--231.
[11]
Victorio A. Carvalho and João Paulo A. Almeida. 2018. Toward a well-founded theory for multi-level conceptual modeling. Software & Systems Modeling 17, 1 (Feb. 2018), 205--231.
[12]
Victorio Albani Carvalho, João Paulo A. Almeida, and Giancarlo Guizzardi. 2016. Using a Well-Founded Multi-level Theory to Support the Analysis and Representation of the Powertype Pattern in Conceptual Modeling. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Selmin Nurcan, Pnina Soffer, Marko Bajec, and Johann Eder (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 309--324.
[13]
Juan de Lara and Esther Guerra. 2010. Deep Meta-modelling with MetaDepth. In Objects, Models, Components, Patterns. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 1--20.
[14]
Ulrich Frank. 2018. The flexible multi-level modelling and execution language (FMMLx). version 2.0: analysis of requirements and technical terminology. Technical Report. ICB-Research Report.
[15]
Cesar Gonzalez-Perez and Brian Henderson-Sellers. 2006. A Powertype-Based Metamodelling Framework. Software & Systems Modeling 5, 1 (April 2006), 72--90.
[16]
Brian Henderson-Sellers, Owen Eriksson, Cesar Gonzalez-Perez, and Pär J. Ågerfalk. 2013. Ptolemaic Metamodelling?: The Need for a Paradigm Shift. IGI Global, Pennsylvania, USA, Chapter 4, 90--146.
[17]
Manfred A. Jeusfeld and Bernd Neumayr. 2016. DeepTelos: Multi-level Modeling with Most General Instances. In Conceptual Modeling - 35th International Conference, ER 2016, Gifu, Japan, November 14-17, 2016. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 198--211.
[18]
Thomas Kühne. 2018. Exploring potency. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. ACM, New York, USA, 2--12.
[19]
Thomas Kühne. 2018. A story of levels. In Proceedings of MODELS 2018 Workshops, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018. CEUR, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2245/, 673--682.
[20]
Thomas Kühne and Colin Atkinson. 2008. Reducing accidental complexity in domain models. Software & Systems Modeling 7, 3 (01 Jul 2008), 345--359.
[21]
Thomas Kühne and Manfred A. Jeusfeld. 2023. Sanity-Checking Multiple Levels of Classification. In Conceptual Modeling, João Paulo A. Almeida, José Borbinha, Giancarlo Guizzardi, Sebastian Link, and Jelena Zdravkovic (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 162--180.
[22]
Thomas Kühne and Arne Lange. 2020. Meaningful metrics for multi-level modelling. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion Proceedings (Virtual Event, Canada) (MODELS '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 85, 9 pages.
[23]
Thomas Kühne and Arne Lange. 2022. Melanee and DLM: a contribution to the MULTI collaborative comparison challenge. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion Proceedings (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) (MODELS '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 434--443.
[24]
Thomas Kühne and Daniel Schreiber. 2007. Can programming be liberated from the two-level style? - Multi-level programming with DeepJava. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA) (Montreal, Quebec, Canada), R. P. Gabriel, D. F. Bacon, C. Videira Lopes, and G. L. Steele Jr. (Eds.). ACM, USA, 229--244.
[25]
Thomas Kühne and Friedrich Steimann. 2004. Tiefe Charakterisierung. In Proceedings of Modellierung 2004 (LNI (45)), Bernhard Rumpe and Wolfgang Hesse (Eds.). GI, Bonn, Germany, 121--133.
[26]
T. Kühne, J. A. Almeida, C. Atkinson, M. A. Jeusfeld, and G. Mezei. 2023. Field Types for Deep Characterization in Multi-Level Modeling. In 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion (MODELS-C). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 639--648.
[27]
Arne Lange and Colin Atkinson. 2022. Multi-level modeling with LML. International Journal of Conceptual Modeling 17 (June 2022), 1--36.
[28]
Barbara H. Liskov and Jeannette M. Wing. 1994. A behavioral notion of subtyping. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 16, 6 (Nov. 1994), 1811--1841.
[29]
Bertrand Meyer. 1997. Object-Oriented Software Construction (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall, NJ, USA.
[30]
Gergely Mezei, Thomas Kühne, Victorio Carvalho, and Bernd Neumayr. 2021. The MULTI Collaborative Comparison Challenge. MULTI 2021 Call for Papers. https://jku-win-dke.github.io/MULTI2022/MULTI2021_Challenge.pdf
[31]
Bernd Neumayr, Michael Schrefl, and Bernhard Thalheim. 2011. Modeling Techniques for Multi-level Abstraction. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 68--92.
[32]
Matt Selway, Markus Stumptner, Wolfgang Mayer, Andreas Jordan, Georg Grossmann, and Michael Schrefl. 2017. A conceptual framework for large-scale ecosystem interoperability and industrial product lifecycles. Data & Knowledge Engineering 109 (2017), 85--111.
[33]
Dániel Urbán, Zoltan Theisz, and Gergely Mezei. 2018. Self-describing Operations for Multi-level Meta-modeling. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,. INSTICC, SciTePress, Setúbal, Portugal, 519--527.
Index Terms
- Misconceptions about Potency-Based Deep Instantiation
Recommendations
Exploring Potency
MODELS '18: Proceedings of the 21th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and SystemsThe original notion of potency -- one of the core features underpinning many forms of multi-level modeling -- has come under pressure in several ways: First, since its inception new modeling challenges have come to the fore that raise serious questions ...
Modeling techniques for multi-level abstraction
The evolution of conceptual modelingEmploying multi-level abstraction in modeling refers to representing objects at multiple levels of one or more abstraction hierarchies, mainly classification, aggregation and generalization. Multiple representation, however, leads to accidental ...
Intrinsically-typed definitional interpreters for imperative languages
A definitional interpreter defines the semantics of an object language in terms of the (well-known) semantics of a host language, enabling understanding and validation of the semantics through execution. Combining a definitional interpreter with a ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
September 2024
1261 pages
ISBN:9798400706226
DOI:10.1145/3652620
- Chairs:
- Manuel Wimmer,
- Alexander Egyed,
- Program Chairs:
- Benoit Combemale,
- Marsha Chechik
Copyright © 2024 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to 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
- SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering
- Johannes Kepler University Linz
- IEEE CS
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 31 October 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
MODELS Companion '24
Sponsor:
MODELS Companion '24: ACM/IEEE 27th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems
September 22 - 27, 2024
Linz, Austria
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 144 of 506 submissions, 28%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 31Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)31
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 08 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