modelling needs meta-modelling!

I finally came to know about this: and this is not a simple tautology (tautology is a proposition which is always true). This is practical.

We are talking about domain specific metamodel. And this is the key to the use of meta-modelling as I am now starting to learn from David's recent note as well as rereading of his book.

One simple way to see this is to think about naming (whose importance in modelling has been stressed since the ancient times --- it is even in Michael Jackson --- though my understanding on this matter came from Matthew Rawlings). Now naming has at least the following two purposes in modelling:

• to make something existent which has not been existed (well to be precise reify but I think this may not be too far fetched)
  
• to make this stage prepared for future usage esp integration but also for maintenance and evolution and all that

So names are important especially for integration: but how then can we make uniform naming useful for integration?

One of the well-practiced answers is a dictionary, a dictionary of terms and conceps which are used in modelling. But this means a dictionary should cross over individual model elements, that is it should be at a meta-model.

From a different viewpoint, modelling can easily be lousy. And even good models are hardly useful except when they are equipped with useful helping infrastructure, including model transformation, assertion checking, automatic template generation, etc. (consider MOF transformations David discussed in his book). Without such infrastructure we do not have a good use of models themselves except as the means of communication --- but even the latter becomes much much more efficient with the use of metamodels which govern and guide them.

And this has a direct relevance to the design of Scribble --- even though it is a general-purpose language for describing interactions (well it is domain-specific in the sense that it is about interactions, but as such it is general purpose, and from the viewpoint of MDA too general-purpose --- so we do need be ready for domain specificity --- and here am I revealing too much? As it is reflected on Scribble's design we shall report on this and other columns).

NB: I am sorry updates this blog are not done so much recently: this is because I am busy in two fronts: (1) logics for interactions (motivated by both foundations and from Matthew's ingenious *short* treatise); and (2) understanding (meta)modelling to be reflected onto the design of the language. I also confess I am writing many technical papers, since to communicate something new one needs to prepare people's minds --- on this point perhaps we can discuss later. But on scribble, our main topic now is modelling and meta-modelling, which will prepare for other associated technologies such as DBC.

On modelling

We shall soon publish here and in other places a compilation of examples in scribble (an updated version). But a recent news I wish to report is that I am learning aboug modelling in UML sense in practice --- from David's writings and from ongoing discussions in WG4 (I am lucky I could listen to the first-rate modelling experts and domain experts engaged in actual modelling through conversations).

As an interim report I found that the modelling is about articulation of such things as:

• cardinality (n-m relationships)
• part-of relationship
• subtype relationship

.... all these kinds of relationships among entities. And by stipulating these relationships it is defining basic ontology of software to be made, or of messages to be exchanged.

So a modelling defines existence. That is why naming is so important in this endeavour.

This gives us the following observation, apart from my interest in Scribble: this level of "basic-ness" is needed if we are to introduce specification of interactional behaviour at the core of the modelling framework. I mean, at the same level as class models and associated diagrams.

This new element should be, if to be introduced, for defining the basic ontology of behaviour.

In other words and more concretely, I want the kind of technical discussions currently being carried out in WG4, or (in case you are not there) that standard modelling steps when we build entities and their relationships one by one, to be done at the level of interaction behaviours --- about the rules of exchange of messages.

Of course through the current discussions I am now concious of the challenging nature of the ontology of messages themselves, which is already new to the world of modelling --- and my (perhaps not too short) experience in the world of theory can easily let me see the value of having true experts in such technical works --- since they know the most important thing is to start from basics and to have a lucid understanding of it, gradually one by one: what a pleasure to see this unfolding in real-time!

So --- albeit, or all the more because of, my personal interest coming from scribble --- I will for the time focus on the understanding of ontology of messages by listening to these conversations. Why not, this is most exciting, I am learning a new attitude to the understanding of computation.

Copenhagen 2

Just in case this is of any interest to you, this is the abstract of the talk on logics I gave in Copenhagen. My thanks go to Lars Berkdale and Thomas Hildebrandt for hosting my talk.

Title:
An Observationally Complete Program Logic for Higher-Order Functions

Time and Place:
October 3rd, 11:15-12:30, ITU Copenhagen

Abstract:
If you have a program and run it, then it usually shows some behaviour. This may take the form of interactions with a display, a printer, or communication ports. More closely looked, its main interactions may be with an operating system, libraries and other software. Anyway it has a certain behaviour, which can be useful, can be disastrous, or can be enjoyable.

A program logic allows us to describe such software behaviour using logical assertions. It often also enables syntactic derivation of valid descriptions. Such a logic may as well have a semantic basis, in the sense that its assertions discuss all and only observable behaviour of programs. One of the well-known logics with this property is Hoare's logic for first-order imperative programs, developed on the basis of Floyd's assertion method.

This talk is about extensions of Hoare logic to higher-order functions. Extending Hoare logic to higher-order functions (which also underlie such popular languages as Java) has been known to be one of the subtle issues for decades: this work uses ideas from the pi-calculus to develop such an extension. The logic allows clean, precise description of higher-order behaviour and has several strong completenesss properties. In this talk, I will illustrate core ideas of the logic using simple examples, discuss its completeness properties and their proof methods, position them among related works and its extensions, and point out several remaining topics.

[end]

Copenhagen

It was a great visit --- Nobuko and I went to ITU last week.

First night we were roaming around Kongens Nytorv. Then we happened to walk into a placecalled hviids vinstue --- this should be since I kept a card --- and this was a place where a lot of locals are drinking and singing, and the man who looked like an owner is playing a piano.

I may not say he is a master. But he clearly had a musical soul. It was unmistakable.

There are two ladies who were taking care of the place, aperitif is good and food is ample and simple if not exquisite. A basic danish food which is edible. Many locals, as I wrote, and even somehow two local british --- one with a strong welsh accent --- were there, one of whom has his portrait on the wall, I think he is an old customer.

We also have a black singer who roamded into the house, all sang Danish songs and this master with a music spirit, an old man who was fat and bold and not with a great voice but so deeply driven by his inner urge to sing so you cannot help joining (if you knew Danish) it was one of the most welcoming nights we could have in a foreign city.

We can discuss about another restaurant but I will leave it for another occasion.

* * *

By the way Matthew sent me a mail about Physiognomy --- what was it about? Is it a new idea about asynchrony? He did find another asynchrony in communication recently. He is a man of asynchrony. He also calls telephone "telephonum".

So another question: did Romans use telephone?

[added a couple of days later: it turned out that he wrote "teleplenum" which means a conference via telephone, so this is simply my misconception. It also turned out that "telephonum" has some useful meaning but anyway he (nor Romans perhaps) did not use this word.]

* * *

I am currently too occupied with a few absorbing (one of which not so unrelated to scribble) subjects my colleagues and I have been working on so could not proceed with scribble: but Gary is proceeding with the design of 10 subjects --- 10 google docs we share --- at this moment. I will join soon. A basic part of this language will be complete in a close future. Well almost *now*.