Visual Modeling Language Extension Validation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing visual modeling languages lack mechanisms to ensure proper extension of modeling language entities, leading to inconsistent user interfaces and potential misuse by developers, as they do not enforce necessary implementation conditions, resulting in poorly designed applications.

Innovation Solution

The proposed solution involves an integrated development environment that selectively provides support for extending modeling language entities based on predefined conditions, ensuring that extensions are properly implemented by requiring necessary elements and preventing incomplete implementations, thus enforcing user interface and branding guidelines for consistency.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If developers are allowed to freely extend modeling language entities without restrictions, then the adaptability and versatility of the modeling language increases, but the consistency and quality of user interfaces deteriorates due to lack of enforcement of implementation conditions

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveextensibility of modeling languageVSAvoidconsistency of user interface
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent defines and enforces implementation conditions beforehand for extending modeling language entities. The system预先 specifies what conditions must be met when extending entities like scenarios, interactors, or services, ensuring that any extension maintains UI consistency before the extension is actually created.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system provides feedback to developers about whether their extension proposals meet the required implementation conditions. The environment evaluates extension requests against predefined conditions and either approves or rejects them, guiding developers to create consistent extensions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Manufacturing precision

If the visual modeling language enforces strict conditions for extensions, then the consistency and quality of applications improves, but the complexity of the development process increases due to additional validation requirements

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvequality of applicationVSAvoidcomplexity of extension process
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system automatically evaluates extension proposals against implementation conditions without requiring manual verification. The environment self-validates whether an extension meets the required conditions, reducing the burden on developers while maintaining quality standards.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

3Ease of operation

If the system provides full support for all extension requests, then the ease of operation for developers improves, but the reliability of the modeling language deteriorates due to potential misuse and incomplete implementations

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveease of extending entitiesVSAvoidreliability of modeling language
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system takes preliminary anti-action by preventing invalid extensions before they can be created. By enforcing implementation conditions, the system blocks potential misuse and incomplete implementations before they compromise the reliability of the modeling language.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #9Preliminary anti-action

4Reliability

If the system restricts extension support based on implementation conditions, then the reliability of the modeling language improves, but the adaptability of the system worsens due to limited extension capabilities

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvereliability of modeling languageVSAvoidextension capability
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The implementation conditions are designed to be universal and applicable to all types of modeling language entities (scenarios, interactors, services). This universal framework maintains reliability while allowing diverse extensions across different entity types, preserving adaptability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentUS7757204B2Limiting extensibility of a visual modeling language
Publication Date: 2010.07.13 SAP SE
  • US7757204B2 patent drawing
  • US7757204B2 patent drawing
  • US7757204B2 patent drawing

AI summary

Methods and apparatus, including computer program products, for selectively supporting extensions to a modeling language. A method includes receiving a request to extend a modeling language entity and selectively providing support to define an extension of the modeling language entity. Support is selectively provided by determining whether the support to define the extension of the modeling language entity can be provided based on a definition of the modeling language entity in a visual modeling language. If the support can be provided, the support is provided; otherwise, the support is excluded. The method can further include selectively generating the extended modeling language entity. The extended modeling language entity can be selectively generated by determining whether the extension meets one or more conditions for being a valid extension to the modeling language entity, and if the extension meets the conditions, the extended modeling language entity is generated.