1. Yu, et al.’s“A Model-Driven Development Framework for Enterprise Web Services”In proceedings of the 10th IEEE Intl Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC06) A summary

2. Agenda • Context: 5 mins intro to MDD • Summary of the main points in the paper: • The idea • The main contribution • Section by section summary • Discussion • Some possibilities for improvement • The final grades!

3. MDD – the basic idea • Raising the level of abstraction • Main benefits: • “Closer” to the real concepts  Software specification and understanding are easier • Less bound to the underlying platform  Software maintenance is easier (“Model once, Generate everywhere”)

4. MDD – The Lingo • Models • M1: Describe/Specify the real things • Modeling languages • Notation, Syntax, Semantics • Meta models and meta languages • M2: Describe the modeling language • An XSD file is an M2, XML schema is the meta language

5. MDD – The Lingo (2) • Model Transformation: • Same idea as compiling • just more difficult, due too the wider gap of abstraction • Is done at the meta level • Elements and relationships mappings • Involves: • A set of mappings (Transformation Rules), expressed in a certain transformation language • A transformation engine (like a compiler)

6. The paper - Idea • Start with EDOC models • Enterprise Distributed Object Component, a UML-based language designed for distributed, component-based systems • Automatically generate the WDSL files (Not the web services themselves) for all the Web Services involved in the models

7. The paper – Contributions • A set of EDOCWDSL transformation rules • Could be used for what it is designed for (of course) • Serve as a a concrete example of MDD • Meta models for both EDOC and WDSL were given in UML notations • How entities and relationships from one meta model are mapped to another

8. The proposed transformation rules • Described in details in section 4 of paper • Transformation language used: An extended version of OCL • OCL = Object Constraint Language • Designed for specifying syntax of languages • Authors wanted to stay transformation language neutral • Maps data types and elements from CCA (Component Collaboration Architecture) to data types and elements in WSDL meta model (an XML Schema)

9. Other sections • Section 1, 2 & 3: • Briefly introduces MDD, MDA, UML, EDOC, SOA, WS • Section 5: • An illustrative example on how the proposed transformation rules can be used • An E-library system, modeled in EDOC, to be implemented using WS, whose WDSL files are auto-generated by the proposed rules • Section 6 & 7: • Related works and Conclusions

10. Improvement Possibilities • Specificity • Author didn’t mention what transformation engine used, and its complexity • How UML models (graphical notation) are first converted to textual notations before the transformation rules can be applied?

11. Improvement Possibilities • Generality • OCL works (according to the paper) for this particular mapping, but was not designed as a transformation language. • UML and its derivatives have been questioned as machine-processable modeling language: Originally intended for human reading  No formal semantics

12. Improvement Possibilities • Only generate the WDSL files • Actual implementation, if to be auto-generated, requires a different transformation • More results would be needed to make a complete solution • The author mentioned that they have some work in progress • Can it be combined with other reported approaches? (Commercial tools already do this for other modeling language)

13. Numerical Grades? • Originality 4/5 • Technical merit 3/5 • Presentation 4/5 • Overall 4/5

14. Conclusions • The paper provides a concrete example of MDD and model transformation • Graphical meta models for EDOC and WSDL were given in the paper • A set of mappings between EDOC and WSDL was provided • No vigorous testing provided, but very sensical • More result will make the solution more complete and useful • How the actual implementations can be generated (using either the author’s or other’s approaches)