These early tools were not widely taken into use,
although the use of Systematica??™s Virtual Software Factory metaCASE tool (Pocock,
1991) by IBM in building its BSDM support tool (Haine, 1992), and again by Heym
and O??
sterle in the construction of their MEET method engineering environment
(Heym and O??
sterle, 1993), provided practical proof that such tools could be useful.
With some success in the Francophone world, GraphTalk (Jeulin, 2005) offered good
pointers to future directions, although initially it only ran on special LISP machine
hardware. Comparisons of these metaCASE tools (e.g., Marttiin et al., 1993;
Goldkuhl and Cronholm, 1993) revealed that the process of metamodeling
(Teichroew and Hershey, 1977; Brinkkemper, 1990)??”con?¬?guring the tools to
support a new modeling language??”could be improved, as could the accuracy and
breadth of the support for the modeling language in the con?¬?gured tool.
MetaCASE tools of the 1990s tended to separate the metamodeling part from the
modeling part. The description of the modeling language was written in a textual
language, possibly compiled to some other form, and then fed into the con?¬?gurable
modeling tool, which then supported the new modeling language. Some more
advanced tools provided partial graphical support for the metamodeling process, for
example, MetaEdit and ToolBuilder.
Pages:
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687