Controlling Metamodel Availability Through a Maturity Model: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
(Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „{{Vortrag |vortragender=Tobin Zühlke |email=Tobin.Zuehlke@vector.com |vortragssprache=Deutsch |vortragstyp=Masterarbeit |betreuer=Erik Burger |termin=Institutsseminar/2025-11-21 |vortragsmodus=in Präsenz |kurzfassung=Kurzfassung }}“) |
Keine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung |
||
| Zeile 7: | Zeile 7: | ||
|termin=Institutsseminar/2025-11-21 | |termin=Institutsseminar/2025-11-21 | ||
|vortragsmodus=in Präsenz | |vortragsmodus=in Präsenz | ||
|kurzfassung= | |kurzfassung=Collaborative metamodel development often suffers from delays or the premature exposure of unstable parts of the metamodel due to a lack of mechanisms for controlling the availability of metamodel changes. To address this, we propose an approach that uses a descriptive maturity model to classify metamodel changes into distinct stages. Combined with the Transitional Metamodel technique—which preserves previous states of each change—this enables filtering of immature elements during code generation and allows metamodel elements to be disabled at runtime based on user-specific maturity requirements. Metamodel consistency is maintained through defined invariants and enforcement strategies. Applied to PREEvision, the prototype supports 64% of MOF-compliant changes and reduces the time between metamodel updates and code generation by up to 88%, with only a minimal increase in metamodel complexity. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Version vom 10. November 2025, 13:40 Uhr
| Vortragende(r) | Tobin Zühlke | |
|---|---|---|
| Vortragstyp | Masterarbeit | |
| Betreuer(in) | Erik Burger | |
| Termin | Fr 21. November 2025, 13:00 (Raum 010 (Gebäude 50.34)) | |
| Vortragssprache | Deutsch | |
| Vortragsmodus | in Präsenz | |
| Kurzfassung | Collaborative metamodel development often suffers from delays or the premature exposure of unstable parts of the metamodel due to a lack of mechanisms for controlling the availability of metamodel changes. To address this, we propose an approach that uses a descriptive maturity model to classify metamodel changes into distinct stages. Combined with the Transitional Metamodel technique—which preserves previous states of each change—this enables filtering of immature elements during code generation and allows metamodel elements to be disabled at runtime based on user-specific maturity requirements. Metamodel consistency is maintained through defined invariants and enforcement strategies. Applied to PREEvision, the prototype supports 64% of MOF-compliant changes and reduces the time between metamodel updates and code generation by up to 88%, with only a minimal increase in metamodel complexity. | |