Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Chapter 1 Introduction
Background
Mathematical Background
Structural Semantics Overview
Design Choices
Discussions
Related Works
References
All Topics
Computer Science

A Set-Theoretic Formal Specification of the Semantics of Kermeta

Profile image of Moussa AMRANIMoussa AMRANI
visibility

…

description

48 pages

link

1 file

Abstract
sparkles

AI

This paper presents a formal specification of the semantics of Kermeta through a set-theoretic approach, which aims to clarify the concepts and constraints prevalent in Model-Driven Engineering (MDE). Emphasizing the role of Domain-Specific Modeling Languages (DSMLs), it explores methods for effective model manipulation, elucidating how abstract operations in Kermeta are structured. The formalization addresses common misunderstandings in terminology, like the distinction between 'ordered set' in set theory versus its usage in MDE contexts, thereby seeking to enhance precision in model representation and interaction.

Related papers

A component-based approach for specifying DSML's concrete syntax
Cédric Dumoulin, Amine Kouhen

Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Graphical Modeling Language Development - GMLD '13, 2013

Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) encourages the use of graphical modeling tools, which facilitate the development process from modeling to coding. Such tools can be designed using the MDE approach into meta-modeling environments called metaCASE tools.

View PDFchevron_right
Domain specific modeling
Bernhard Rumpe

Software & Systems Modeling, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
Domain-specific languages: An annotated bibliography
Paul Klint

2000

Abstract We survey the literature available on the topic of domain-specific languages as used for the construction and maintenance of software systems. We list a selection of 75 key publications in the area, and provide a summary for each of the papers. Moreover, we discuss terminology, risks and benefits, example domain-specific languages, design methodologies, and implementation techniques.

View PDFchevron_right
Udm: An Infrastructure for Implementing Domain-Specific Modeling Languages
Arpad Bakay

The 3rd OOPSLA …, 2003

Domain-specific modeling languages amortize the cost of the development of a language over all the software products they can be used for. This paper describes an infrastructure for developing DSMLs and using them in a systematic manner. The infrastructure consists of a modeling ...

View PDFchevron_right
Formalizing the structural semantics of domain-specific modeling languages
Janos Sztipanovits

Software & Systems Modeling, 2009

Model-based approaches to system design are now widespread and successful. These approaches make extensive use of model structure to describe systems using domain-specific abstractions, to specify and implement model transformations, and to analyze structural properties of models. In spite of its general importance the structural semantics of modeling languages are not well-understood. In this paper we develop the formal foundations for the structural semantics of domain specific modeling languages (DSML), including the mechanisms by which metamodels specify the structural semantics of DSMLs. Additionally, we show how our formalization can complement existing tools, and how it yields algorithms for the analysis of DSMLs and model transformations.

View PDFchevron_right
Requirements for domain-specific languages
Fiona Polack

2006

A domain-specific language (DSL), whether used for model-driven development or programming, is a piece of critical infrastructure that is developed during the system engineering process. As such, a DSL has its own lifecycle, which in turn may encapsulate the lifecycles of many other system development projects.

View PDFchevron_right
An EXecutable Metamodelling Facility for Domain Specific Language Design.
Tony Clark

2004

View PDFchevron_right
Creating Domain-Specific Modeling Languages with OPM/D
Dov Dori

Domain-specific languages and model-driven development are two promising approaches for tackling the complexity of software systems development. However, creating domain-specific modeling languages is a complex and lengthy task which makes the creation of DSMLs only feasible in large and complex projects. To alleviate this difficulty, we developed OPM/D, a visual meta-modeling language for the definition of domainspecific modeling languages. Languages in OPM/D are defined via a static structural meta-model of the language and a set of validation rules that define the non-structural constraints of the language. The language editor is created on-the-fly through interpretation of the static structure and validation rules, minimizing the time between language definition and its use. Our approach has been applied to define a subset of the OPM modeling language, and a prototype tools is being developed using the Eclipse platform and technologies.

View PDFchevron_right
Evaluating the benefits of using domain-specific modeling languages
Aurèle Destailleur

Proceedings of the 2013 ACM workshop on Domain-specific modeling - DSM '13, 2013

There are many tools available for the creation of domain specific languages (DSLs) but the question remains how to identify appropriate use cases for the application of domain specific modeling and language design, and how to measure success. We report on our observations after three years of accompanying several real-life industrial DSL design projects and on our experiments with applying qualitative and quantitative evaluation criteria. We suggest an evaluation methodology spanning the entire DSL life cycle. It consists of an assessment of motivation, qualitative interviews, a validation of DSL design, quantifying benefits and a comparison of impacted workflows before and after adoption. We conclude with a discussion of inherent limitations.

View PDFchevron_right
Model-Driven Development
Nathalie Aquino, Sergio España Cubillo

Informatik-Spektrum, 2008

The MDA paradigm is extensively used by the software engineering (SE) community. There are a large number of methods, such as USIXML or OOWS , that are based on the MDA paradigm and that apply model transformations during the development process.

View PDFchevron_right

References (44)

  1. 3.2 Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  2. 4 Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  3. 4.1 Semantic Domain and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  4. 4.2 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  5. 4.3 Semantic Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  6. 5 Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  7. 5.1 Syntactic aspects & Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  8. 5.2 Related Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References
  9. Alfred Aho, Ravi Sethi, and Jeffrey Ullman. Compilers: Principles, Techniques & Tools. Addison-Wesley, 1986. ISBN: 0-201-10088-6.
  10. Moussa Amrani and Nuno Amálio. A Set-Theoretic Formal Specification of the Semantics of Kermeta. Tech. rep. Available at http://bit.ly/ju4NcG. University of Luxembourg, 2011.
  11. Colin Atkinson and Thomas Kühne. "Model-Driven Development: A Metamodeling Foundation." In: IEEE Soft- ware 20 (2003), pp. 36-41. ISSN: 0740-7459. DOI: http : / / doi . ieeecomputersociety . org / 10 . 1109/MS.2003.1231149.
  12. Enrico Biermann, Claudia Ermel, and Gabriele Taentzer. "Precise Semantics of EMF Model Transformations by Graph Transformation." In: Models'08. Toulouse, France, 2008, pp. 53-67. DOI: http : / / dx . doi . org . proxy.bnl.lu/10.1007/978-3-540-87875-9_4.
  13. Artur Boronat and José Meseguer. "An Algebraic Semantics For MOF." In: FASE'08. Springer, 2008, pp. 377-391.
  14. Frederick P. (Jr.) Brooks. "No Silver Bullet -Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering (Invited Paper)." In: IFIP 10th World Computer Congress. Dublin, Ireland, 1986, pp. 1069-1076.
  15. Luca Cardelli. "Type Systems." In: The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook. CRC Press, 2004.
  16. Giuseppe Castagna and Zhiwu Xu. "Set-Theoretic Foundation of Parametric Polymorphism and Subtyping." In: 16th ACM SIGPLAN ICFP. 2011.
  17. Tony Clark, Paul Sammut, and James Willans. Superlanguages: Developing Languages and Applications with XMF. Ceteva, 2008.
  18. Manuel Clavel et al. All About MAUDE. A High-Performance Logical Framework. Springer, 2007.
  19. Benoit Combemale et al. "Essay on Semantics Definition in MDE. An Instrumented Approach for Model Verifica- tion." In: Journal of Software 4.9 (November 2009), pp. 943-958.
  20. Zoé Drey et al. Kermeta Language -Reference Manual. University of Rennes, Triskell Team. 2009.
  21. Hartmut Ehrig and Bernd Mahr. Fundamentals of Algebraic Specifications. Springer-Verlag, 1985.
  22. Frank Fleurey. "Language and Method for Trustable Modeling Engineering." (in french). Doctoral dissertation. University of Rennes (France), 2006.
  23. Angelo Gargantini, Elvinia Riccobene, and Patrizia Scandurra. "A Semantic Framework for Metamodel-Based Languages." In: Automated Software Engineering (ASE) 16.3-4 (2009), pp. 415-454.
  24. Angelo Gargantini, Elvinia Riccobene, and Patrizia Scandurra. "Model-Driven Language Engineering: The AS- META Case Study." In: ICSEA '08. 2008, pp. 373-378. ISBN: 978-0-7695-3372-8. DOI: http : / / dx . doi . org/10.1109/ICSEA.2008.62.
  25. David Harel and Bernhard Rumpe. "Meaningful Modeling: What's the Semantics of "Semantics"?" In: Computer 37.10 (2004), pp. 64-72. ISSN: 0018-9162. DOI: http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/ MC.2004.172.
  26. Stefan Jurack and Gabriele Taentzer. "A Component Concept for Typed Graphs With Inheritance and Containment Structures." In: 5th Proceedings of ICGT. 2010.
  27. Kermeta. Triskell Team (University of Rennes, France) http://www.kermeta.org.
  28. P. Krishnan. "Consistency Checks For UML." In: Proceedings of the Seventh Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC). 2000.
  29. Pierre-Alain Muller, Franck Fleurey, and Jean-Marc Jézéquel. "Weaving Executability into Object-Oriented Meta- Languages." In: MODELS/UML'2005. 2005, pp. 264-278.
  30. Object Management Group. Meta-Object Facility 2.0 Core Specification (06-01-01). Tech. rep. OMG, 2006.
  31. Object Management Group. Object Constraint Language (OCL) Specification (Version 2.2, formal/2010-02-01). Specification Document. (OMG), 2010.
  32. Richard Paige, Dimitrios Kolovos, and Fiona Polack. "An Action Semantics for MOF 2.0." In: ACM SAC. Dijon, France, 2006, pp. 1304-1305. ISBN: 1-59593-108-2. DOI: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1141277. 1141579. URL: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1141277.1141579.
  33. Iman Poernomo. "The Meta-Object Facility (MOF) Typed." In: SAC. 2006, pp. 1845-1849.
  34. Isabelle Pollet. "Towards a Generic Framework For the Abstract Interpretation of Java." Doctoral dissertation. Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium), 2004.
  35. Gianna Reggio, Maura Cerioli, and Egidio Astesiano. "Towards A Rigorous Semantics Of UML Supporting Its Multiview Approach." In: Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE). 2001.
  36. José Eduardo Rivera. "On The Semantics of Real-Time Domain-Specific Modeling of Languages." Doctoral dis- sertation. University of Malaga (Spain), 2010.
  37. Grzegorz Rozenberg, ed. Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation (Vol. I: Foun- dations). World Scientific Pub., 1997. ISBN: 98-102288-48.
  38. Dan Song et al. "A Formal Language For Model Transformation Specification." In: In Proceedings of 7th ICEIS. 2005.
  39. Kim Soon-Kyeong and David Carrington. "Formalizing the UML Class Diagram Using Object-Z." In: Conference on UML. 1999.
  40. Robert F. Stark, E. Borger, and Joachim Schmid. Java and the Java Virtual Machine: Definition, Verification, Validation. Springer-Verlag, 2001. ISBN: 3540420886.
  41. David Steinberg et al. EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework 2.0. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2009. ISBN: 0321331885.
  42. TopCased. The Open-Source Toolkit for Critical Systems http://www.topcased.org.
  43. Glynn Winskel. The Formal Semantics of Programming Languages: An Introduction. MIT Press, 1993.
  44. M. Yang, G.J. Michaelson, and R.J. Pooley. "Formal Action Semantics for a UML Action Language." In: Journal of Universal Computer Science 14.21 (2008), pp. 3608-3624.

Related papers

Guest editorial to the theme issue on non-functional system properties in domain specific modeling languages
Bernhard Schätz

Software & Systems Modeling, 2011

View PDFchevron_right
Defining Domain-Specific Modeling Languages: Collected Experiences
Juha-Pekka Tolvanen

2004

Domain-Specific Modeling offers a language-based approach to raise the level of abstraction in order to speed up development work and decrease the number of errors. In this paper we identify approaches that are applied for defining languages. This categorization is based on analyzing over 20 industrial cases of DSM language definition.

View PDFchevron_right
Enabling the Collaborative Definition of DSMLs
Jordi Cabot

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2013

Software development processes are collaborative in nature. Neglecting the key role of end-users leads to software that does not satisfy their needs. This collaboration becomes specially important when creating Domain-Specific Modeling Languages (DSMLs), which are (modeling) languages specifically designed to carry out the tasks of a particular domain. While end-users are actually the experts of the domain for which a DSML is developed, their participation in the DSML specification process is still rather limited nowadays. In this paper we propose a more community-aware language development process by enabling the active participation of all community members (both developers and end-users of the DSML) from the very beginning. Our proposal is based on a DSML itself, called Collaboro, which allows representing change proposals on the DSML design and discussing (and tracing back) possible solutions, comments and decisions arisen during the collaboration.

View PDFchevron_right
Model driven language engineering with Kermeta
Jean-Marc Jézéquel

2011

In many domains such as telecom, aerospace and automotive industries, engineers rely on Domain Specic Modeling Languages (DSML) to solve the complex issues of engineering safety critical software. Traditional Language Engineering starts with the grammar of a language to produce a variety of tools for processing programs expressed in this language. Recently however, many new languages tend to be rst dened through metamodels, i.e. models describing their abstract syntax. Relying on well tooled standards such as E-MOF, this approach makes it possible to readily benet from a set of tools such as reexive editors, or XML serialization of models. This article aims at showing how Model Driven Engineering can easily complement these o-the-shelf tools to obtain a complete environment for such a language, including interpreter, compiler, pretty-printer and customizable editors. We illustrate the conceptual simplicity and elegance of this approach using the running example of the well known LOGO programming language, developed within the Kermeta environment. Author manuscript, published in "3rd Summer School on Generative and Transformational Techniques in Software Engineering LNCS 6491, Springer (Ed.) (2010)" new Language Engineering completely based on models [22], that we call Model Driven Language Engineering (MDLE).

View PDFchevron_right
IDFML: A Meta Language for Heterogeneous DSMLs Coordination
naima essadi

International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 2020

The popularization of both Software Language Engineering (SLE) and Model Driven Engineering (MDE) as well as the increasing complexity of systems induce new implementation practices. Indeed, many teams of experts collaborate to implement a same system. Every team uses her own domain specific modeling language (DSML) to represent her concerns. Consequently, by the end of the modelling phase, we get many heterogeneous models elaborated using different DSMLs. These models need to be composed to get a whole view of systems, to be able to validate and simulate behaviors. However, many recent researches choose to compose modelling languages rather than models themselves, but until now there are no standard or generic techniques for that. Although, MDE and SLE provide tools and concepts for modeling, customizing and processing business concepts as single activities, in contrast they provide little support for coordinating between these activities. In this paper, authors propose an interfac...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Computer Science
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved