Abstract We present a framework for evaluating language workbenches’ capabilities for co-evolution of graphical modeling languages, modeling tools and models. As with programming, maintenance tasks such as language refinement and enhancement typically account for more work than the initial development phase. Modeling languages have the added challenge of keeping tools and existing models in step with the evolving language. As domain-specific modeling languages and tools have started to be used widely, thanks to reports of significant productivity improvements, some language workbench users have indeed reported problems with co-evolution of tools and models. Our tool-agnostic evaluation framework aims to cover changes across the whole language definition: the abstract syntax, concrete syntax, and constraints. Change impact is assessed for knock-on effects within the language definition, the modeling tools, semantics via generators, and existing models. We demonstrate the viability of the framework by evaluating MetaEdit+, EMF/Sirius and Jjodel, providing a detailed evaluation process for others to repeat with their tools. The results of the evaluation show differences among the tools: from editors not opening correctly or at all, through highlighting of items requiring manual intervention, to fully automatic updates of languages, models and editors. We call for industry to evaluate their tool choices with the framework, tool developers to extend their tool support for co-evolution, and researchers to refine the evaluation framework and evaluations presented.

Rapid advances of connected and autonomous vehicle technology have led to an increase in cyber-attacks.This in turn has driven the development of the ISO 21434 standard aimed at supporting the management of cybersecurity risks in the automotive industry.There is, however, a disconnect between the standard and the currently applied model-based development approaches that are increasingly applied for systems and software development.In this paper, we present tool support created for model-based automotive cybersecurity engineering.This tool is built upon the existing automotive systems development language, EAST-ADL, with extensions to address security in accordance with the ISO 21434 standard covering modeling support, calculation of security-related metrics such as impact, risk, and attack feasibility, and generation of ISO 21434 compliant security threat reports.Meeting the requirements of cybersecurity engineeering according to ISO 21434 are demonstrated with two examples.

Tutorial describes Domain-Specific Modeling (DSM) approach and demonstrates the practical benefits of applying DSM to modeling business / automation processes where documents are used.

In October 2021, the workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling (held at the SPLASH conference series) celebrates its twentieth anniversary since the first workshop in 2001 (http:/

Domain-specific modeling languages and generators have been shown to significantly improve the productivity and quality of system and software development. These benefits are typically reported without explaining the size of the initial investment in creating the languages, generators and related tooling. We compare the investment needed across ten cases, in two different ways, focusing on the effort to develop a complete modeling solution for a particular domain with the MetaEdit+ tool. Firstly, we use a case study research method to obtain detailed data on the development effort of implementing two realistically-sized domain-specific modeling solutions. Secondly, we review eight publicly available cases from various companies to obtain data from industry experiences with the same tool, and compare them with the results from our case studies. Both the case studies and the industry reports indicate that, for this tool, the investment required to create domain-specific modeling support is modest: ranging from 3 to 15 man-days with an average of 10 days.

This tutorial will teach participants about domain-specific languages and models, where they can best be used (and where not), and how to apply them effectively to improve the speed and quality of product development within a product line.

Model-Driven Development is reported to succeed the best when modelling is based on domain-specific languages. Despite significant benefits MDD has not been applied as widely as expected. Costly definition of languages and related generators with tooling, their maintenance when the domain is not stable, challenges in scalability, and collaboration are some reasons that several studies mention. We believe these statements are justifiable but only when applying traditional programming tooling for modelling. Instead we show with data from practice that many of the challenges reported can be solved when using tools built for modelling in the first place.

While creation of modeling languages and related code generators has become easier, their testing is perhaps now-adays the most time consuming part. This is particularly relevant for Domain-Specific Modeling (DSM) as it is common that the language and generators evolve frequently along with the domain it addresses. We demonstrate one solution that we have found practical when applying Test Driven Development for creating and maintaining modeling languages and generators along with tool support.

This tutorial teaches how to define Domain-Specific Modeling languages for product lines: how to identify domain concepts and capture them in the language specification, how to enforce the architecture and coding rules, what options are available for code generation, and what are the industry experiences from companies. The tutorial includes exercises allowing participants to apply the language definition skills learned.

Model integration is inescapable: any non-trivial system will be too large to fit sensibly in a single model. The model will have to be split, maybe into different aspects or languages, different modeler roles and tasks, different phases of the software development life cycle, etc. In Domain-Specific Modeling, the possibilities to integrate models are fundamentally better than with general-purpose languages as the company has full access to the language definitions. We describe and compare different ways to integrate DSM models, based on real world experience of what has been shown to work in practice on industrial scales.

Current modeling languages provide surprisingly little, if any, support for product line development. They are either based on the code world using the semantically well-defined concepts of programming languages (e.g. UML, SA/SD) or based on an architectural view using a simple component-connector concept. In both cases, the languages themselves say nothing about a product family or its variants. This situation could be compared to that of a programmer being asked to write object-oriented programs where the language does not support any object-oriented concepts.