Tagged values were added to certain model
elements to distinguish the role that a model element can play under certain insurancespeci
?¬?c points of view. For example, tagging an attribute with an ???A???-tag meant that
the attribute is needed for an application, a ???T???-tag meant that the attribute is needed
for calculating the premium, and so on.
The company wanted to follow standards and therefore the domain-speci?¬?c
language was also expected to be de?¬?ned directly based on MOF types. This
requirement was satis?¬?ed by ?¬?rst implementingMOF as a metamodel into a modeling
tool and then specializing the de?¬?ned MOF concepts to make the domain-speci?¬?c
modeling concepts. In the metamodel, the modeling concepts were, therefore,
subtypes of MOF types. Rather than implementing MOF completely, just those parts
relevant for the language de?¬?nition were implemented. Figure 6.1 represents the
major concepts of MOF de?¬?ned as a metamodel using the metamodeling language of
MetaEdit+, the tool applied (see Appendix A). Each rectangle represents an object
type, and connections with a diamond show aggregation relationships, for example,
MOFClass may have multiple attributes. Then, these concepts were used in the
modeling language directly since many of the modeling concepts (object) types were
created by inheriting from MOFClass.
Pages:
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248