2006Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne)Open access

Correctly Defined Concrete Syntax for Visual Modeling Languages

Thomas Baar

Open full text 1 citations

Abstract

The syntax of modeling languages is usually defined in two steps. The abstract syntax identifies modeling concepts whereas the concrete syntax clarifies how these modeling concepts are rendered by visual and/or textual elements. While the abstract syntax is often defined in form of a metamodel there is no such standard format yet for concrete syntax definitions; at least as long as the concrete syntax is not purely text-based and classical grammar-based approaches are not applicable. In a previous paper, we proposed to extend the metamodeling approach also to concrete syntax definitions. In this paper, we present an analysis technique for our concrete syntax definitions that detects inconsistencies between the abstract and the concrete syntax of a modeling language. We have implemented our approach on top of the automatic decision procedure SIMPLIFY.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The syntax of modeling languages is usually defined in two steps. The abstract syntax identifies modeling concepts whereas the concrete syntax clarifies how these modeling concepts are rendered by visual and/or textual elements. While the abstract syntax is often defined in form of a metamodel there is no such standard format yet for concrete syntax definitions; at least as long as the concrete syntax is not purely text-based and classical grammar-based approaches are not applicable. In a previous paper, we proposed to extend the metamodeling approach also to concrete syntax definitions. In this paper, we present an analysis technique for our concrete syntax definitions that detects inconsistencies between the abstract and the concrete syntax of a modeling language. We have implemented our approach on top of the automatic decision procedure SIMPLIFY.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The syntax of modeling languages is usually defined in two steps. The abstract syntax identifies modeling concepts whereas the concrete syntax clarifies how these modeling concepts are rendered by visual and/or textual elements. While the abstract syntax is often defined in form of a metamodel there is no such standard format yet for concrete syntax definitions; at least as long as the concrete syntax is not purely text-based and classical grammar-based approaches are not applicable. In a previous paper, we proposed to extend the metamodeling approach also to concrete syntax definitions. In this paper, we present an analysis technique for our concrete syntax definitions that detects inconsistencies between the abstract and the concrete syntax of a modeling language. We have implemented our approach on top of the automatic decision procedure SIMPLIFY.

Key concepts: Syntax, Abstract syntax, Computer science, Syntax error, Abstract syntax tree, Programming language, Word grammar, Metamodeling

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Correctly Defined Concrete Syntax for Visual Modeling Languages — Research Paper | ScholarLens