On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Steffen Mazanek <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear developers of the ArgoUML tool, > > I have heard that you are currently working on UML 2.x support, and > backwards-compatibility with the current release of ArgoUML. > Therefore, you might be interested in the model migration case that > has been accepted for the Transformation Tool Contest 2010 > (http://planet-research20.org/ttc2010/)! > > So, on behalf of the organizing committee I would like to invite you > to join the workshop in Malaga. Of course, we also welcome any > solution you might want to submit. > > If you have any questions, we organizers gladly answer. You can also > use the forum of the case at > http://planet-research20.org/ttc2010/index.php?option=com_community&view=groups&task=viewgroup&groupid=4&Itemid=150 > (but you have to register first).
Thanks very much for the invitation, Steffen. I doubt I'll make it to Malaga, but I'd be happy to support this effort in any way possible and would *love* to see a good solution to the UML 1.4 to UML 2.2 migration problem come out of the workshop. In my opinion, of the OMG's many failings with regard to UML, lack of backward compatibilty between versions is one of the biggest. Any standards group that finds it necessary to release a spec which is incompatible should consider it a required part of the work to also release a reference implementation of a migration tool. It's great to see that ArgoUML was used as a basis for the case study (thank you Rose et al from the University of York!). I'm hopeful that any solutions will be made available in open source form and will be directly usable by ArgoUML and ArgoEclipse as at least a starting point for the needed UML 2.x migration facility. I've talked to Pieter in the past about building on some of the earlier ATLAS based metamodel migration work, but haven't really done anything concrete from an implementation point of view, so I doubt I'll have a solution of my own, but will anxiously look forward to what others come up with. I hope that the submissions will take on the "extension" of dealing with the XMI versions. In the real world, that is how these models are exchanged. It's an interesting academic exercise to look at migrations in the abstract, but it won't be directly useful to anyone without including the XMI component. On the other hand, I see migrating the graphics as an orthogonal task. Since the OMG has never standardized the graphics (look, a graphical modeling language with no specification for the graphics!), every tool is going to have a different implementation anyway. In the Argo case, the graphics will be unchanged during the UML 1.4 to UML 2.x upgrade. Tom p.s. If anyone's interested in the original ArgoUML project that they are being asked to migrate, it's available at http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~louis/ttc/ ------------------------------------------------------ http://argouml.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=450&dsMessageId=2605129 To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [[email protected]]. To be allowed to post to the list contact the mailing list moderator, email: [[email protected]]
