|9:00 - 9:15||Welcome
Jean-Philippe Babau, Mojtaba Bagherzadeh, Francis Bordeleau, Juergen Dingel, Antonio Garcia-Dominguez, Raquel Araujo de Oliveira, Ernesto Posse, Ed Seidewitz, Bran Selic
|9:15 - 10:30||Keynote
Markus works as a language engineer, bridging the gap from industry and business domains to software systems. He analyses domains, designs user-friendly languages and supporting analyses, and implements language tools and IDEs, architects efficient and reliable backends based on interpreters and generators. He also works on formalisms and meta-tools for language engineering. Reach him via http://voelter.de.
Envisioning Future Language Workbenches
Over the last couple of years, I have used MPS successfully to build interesting (modeling and programming) languages in a wide variety of domains, targeting both business users and engineers. I’ve used MPS because it is currently the most powerful language workbench, lots of things are good about iz, in particular, its support for a multitude of notations and language modularity. But it is also obvious that MPS is not going to be viable for the medium to long term future; the most obvious reason for this statement is that it is not web/cloud-based. In this keynote, I will quickly recap why and how we have been successful with MPS, and point out how language workbenches could look like in the future; I will outline challenges, opportunities and research problems. I hope to spawn discussions for the remainder of the workshop.
|10:30 - 11:00||
11:00 - 12:30
|Research papers 1 (Speaker instructions)
A case study of model-driven engineering for automated timetabling
Towards Concrete Syntax Based Find for Graphical Domain Specific Languages
JSOI: A JSON-based interchange format for efficient model management
Voice-Driven Modeling: Software Modeling Using Automated Speech Recognition
|12:30 - 14:00||
|14:00 - 14:50||Invited presentation
SysML v2 and the next generation of system modeling tools
|14:50 - 15:30||Challenge problem (Speaker instructions)
Using Behavioral Programming with Solver, Context, and Deep Reinforcement Learning for Playing a Simplified RoboCup-type Game
A Model Checkable UML Soccer Playe
Solving the RoboSoccer challenge problem with UML-RT and Papyrus-RT
|15:30 - 16:00||
|16:00 - 16:20||Research papers 2 (Speaker instructions)
Usability of Development Tools: A CASE-Study
|16:20 - 17:30||Session: Panel and discussion
MDE and its tools: who and where are we, and where are we going?
Informed by some of the existing work identifying the strengths and weaknesses of current MDE tooling and its role in the (lack of) adoption of modeling and MDE (e.g., [1,2,3]), the panel will discuss a broad range of questions including:
Use and applications of MDE tools
Challenges: The main challenges for MDE tools that have already been identified include: user experience (UX) and support for integration, interoperability, and customization. What is needed to make meaningful progress on these fronts? MDE concepts, techniques and tools are used for many, disparate purposes and activities (e.g., documentation, communication, collaboration, design, management, execution, simulation, generation, optimization, analysis), requiring a plethora of tools. Should the MDE community focus more on core capabilities?
Opportunities: How do you see the applications and benefits of MDE evolve as the types of systems that we build change? Which current and future needs is MDE uniquely positioned to address and how can tooling magnify this advantage?
Development of MDE tools
Challenges: Tool development is hard. Are you optimistic that, e.g., open-source and standardization will mitigate this challenge in a significant way? How else could tool development, evaluation, and evolution be facilitated? Can we identify suitable tool architectures (such as, e.g., ) that support the most important MDE activities?
Opportunities: As usual, the current computing landscape is filled with ideas and trends (e.g., dynamic, interpreted programming languages; language servers and web-based tooling; software ecosystems; increasingly ‘agile’ development processes; increasing desire to build software that operates in uncertain environments, adapts at runtime, and exhibits behaviour that is harder to predict). Which of these are most relevant to us? Which opportunities and challenges do they represent for MDE tools? Are you aware of alternative ways of leveraging abstraction that the MDE community is insufficiently aware of?
Social and cultural factors
It has been noted that software development and MDE tool development in particular are too often carried out with a mindset that is overly technology-oriented and insufficiently aware of the end users. Do you agree? If so, what can we do to reduce this harmful fascination with technology? Also, often, the adoption and use of MDE tools is hampered by poor education, training, support, and public perception. How can this be addressed?
 Bran Selic. What will it take? A view on adoption of model-based methods in practice. Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM) 11(4):513-526. October 2012.
 Jon Whittle, John Hutchinson, Mark Rouncefield, Håkan Burden, Rogardt Heldal. Industrial Adoption of Model-Driven Engineering: Are the Tools Really the Problem? MODELS’13. Miami, FL, USA. 2013.
 Silvia Abrahão, Francis Bordeleau, Betty Cheng, Sahar Kokaly, Richard F. Paige, Harald Störrle, Jon Whittle. User Experience for Model-Driven Engineering: Challenges and Future Directions. MODELS’17. Austin, TX, USA. 2017.
 ModelBus Platform. https://www.modelbus.org/
All presenters should note that the available projectors only support presentations in 4:3 format.
We kindly ask that each presenter prepare for 15 minutes of presentation time followed by 5 minutes of questions and answers. Time permitting, there will be a general discussion at the end of the 11:00-12:30 session covering all papers presented in that session.
The session will contain 3 presentations. It will start with a very brief description of the challenge problem by the organizers, so that this information does not need to be repeated in subsequent presentations. Presenters should
A joint discussion, covering all submissions, will conclude the session. Presenters are encouraged to be prepared for demos during, e.g., coffee breaks, or after the workshop.