Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A framework for families of domain-specific modelling languages

  • Theme Section Paper
  • Published:
Software & Systems Modeling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Domain-specific modelling langugages, which are tailored to the requirements of their users, can significantly increase the acceptance of formal (or at least semi-formal) modelling in scenarios where informal diagrams and natural language descriptions are predominant today. We show in this article how the Resource Description Framework (RDF), which is a standard for the fundamental data structures of the Semantic Web, and algebraic graph transformations on these data structures can be used to realise and modify the abstract syntax of models in such domain-specific languages. We examine a small domain-specific modelling language for IT infrastructures—inspired by real-world requirements from a banking environment—as an application scenario. From this scenario, we derive four key requirements for a domain-specific modelling framework: (1) distributed modelling, (2) evolution of language definitions, (3) migration of legacy models and (4) integration of modelling languages. RDF and transformation rules are then used to provide a solution which meets these requirements simultaneously, where all kinds of modifications—from simple editing steps via model migration to language integration—are realised in an integrated manner by the single, declarative formalism of algebraic graph transformation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32
Fig. 33
Fig. 34

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The RDF specification in [23] does not allow literals as subjects, but we choose to allow them here to obtain a more concise formalisation.

  2. The operations \(\times \) and \(+\) denote the cartesian product and the disjoint union of sets, respectively, where the disjointness ensures that we can determine whether an element of \(G_\mathrm{Nd}\) is a URI, a literal or a blank node.

  3. We also use the symbols \(\times \) and \(+\) for functions, where they denote the obvious generalisations from operations on sets to operations on functions between correspondingly created sets. Moreover, \({\text{ id}_S}\) denotes the identity function on a set \(S\).

  4. The name of blank node 2 could have been any other name that is not already used in the graph, since category theoretical constructions are only defined up to isomorphism.

  5. The classical double pushout (DPO) approach, treated, e.g. in [16], does not need MPOCs, since pushout complements are unique in the categories considered there. This is not the case for RDF graphs. See [6] or [10] for a detailed discussion.

References

  1. Amelunxen, C., Königs, A., Rotschke, T.: MOSL: composing a visual language for a metamodeling framework. In: Proceedings of IEEE VL/HCC 2006, pp. 81–84. (2006). doi:10.1109/VLHCC.2006.33

  2. Amyot, D., Farah, ., Roy, J-F.: Evaluation of development tools for domain-specific modeling languages. In: Gotzhein, R., Reed, R. (eds.) System analysis and modeling: language profiles. Proceedings SAM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4320, pp. 183–197. Springer, Berlin (2006). doi:10.1007/11951148_12

  3. Bagge, A.H.: Yet another language extension scheme. In: van den Brand, M., Gašević, D., Gray, J. (eds.) Software Language Engineering. Proceedings SLE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5969, pp. 123–132. Springer, Berlin (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12107-4_9

  4. Bell, P.: Automated transformation of statements within evolving domain specific languages. In: Sprinkle, J., Gray, J., Rossi, M., Tolvanen, J-P. (eds.) Proceedings DSM 2007, number TR-38 in Computer Science and Information System Reports, pp. 172–177. University of Jyväskylä, October 2007. http://www.dsmforum.org/events/DSM07/papers/bell.pdf

  5. Berners-Lee, T.: Giant global graph. Blog Post, Nov 2007. http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/215

  6. Braatz, B.: Formal modelling and application of graph transformations in the resource description framework. PhD thesis. Technische Universität, Berlin (2009)

  7. Braatz, B., Brandt, C.: Graph transformations for the Resource Description Framework. In: Ermel, C., Heckel, R., de Lara, J. (eds.) Proceedings GT-VMT 2008. Electronic Communications of the EASST, vol. 10. (2008). http://journal.ub.tu-berlin.de/index.php/eceasst/article/view/158

  8. Braatz, B., Brandt, C.: Rule-based integration of domain-specific modelling languages. In: Proceedings MPM 2010. ECEASST, (2010, in press)

  9. Braatz, B., Brandt, C.: Domain-specific modelling languages with algebraic graph transformations on RDF. In: Malloy, B., Staab, S., van den Brand, M. (eds.) Software Language Engineering. Proceedings SLE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6563, pp. 82–101. Springer, Berlin (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19440-5_6

  10. Braatz, B., Golas, U., Soboll, T.: How to delete categorically—two pushout complement constructions. J. Symbol. Comput. 46(3), 246–271 (2011)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Brandt, C., Hermann, F.: Conformance analysis of organizational models: a new enterprise modeling framework using algebraic graph transformation. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Design (2012, in press)

  12. Brandt, C., Hermann, F., Groote, J.F.: Generation and evaluation of business continuity processes; using algebraic graph transformation and the mCRL2 process algebra. J. Res. Pract. Inf. Technol. 43(1), 65–85 (2011). http://www.acs.org.au/jrpit/JRPIT43.1.65.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brickley, D., Guha, R.V.: RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Feb 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/

  14. Choi, N., Song, I.-Y., Han, H.: A survey on ontology mapping. ACM SIGMOD Record 35, 34–41 (2006). doi:10.1145/1168092.1168097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Hermann, F.: From model transformation to model integration based on the algebraic approach to triple graph grammars. Forschungsbericht 2008–03, Fakultät IV, Technische Universität, Berlin (2008). http://www.eecs.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/f4/TechReports/2008/2008-03.pdf

  16. Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. In: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. Springer, Berlin (2006). doi:10.1007/3-540-31188-2

  17. Frank, U., Heise, D., Kattenstroth, H., Ferguson, D.F., Hadar, E., Waschke, M.G.: ITML: a domain-specific modeling language for supporting business driven it management. In: Rossi, M., Sprinkle, J., Gray, J., Tolvanen, J.-P. (eds.) Proceedings DSM 2009, number B-108 in HSE Print (2009). http://www.dsmforum.org/events/DSM09/Papers/Heise.pdf

  18. Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: Meta-modelling and graph transformation for the definition of multi-view visual languages, chapter IV. In: Ferri, F. (ed.) Visual Languages for Interactive Computing: Definitions and Formalizations. pp. 74–101. Information Science Reference 2008. http://astreo.ii.uam.es/~jlara/MultipleViews.pdf

  19. Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Ratiu, D., Wachsmuth, G.: Language evolution in practice: the history of GMF. In: van den Brand, M., Gašević, D., Gray, J. (eds.) Software Language Engineering. Proceedings SLE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5969, pp. 3–22. Springer, Berlin (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12107-4_3

  20. Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1) 75–105 (2004). http://www.misq.org/design-science-in-information-systems-research.html

  21. Kärnä, J., Tolvanen, J.-P., Kelly, S.: Evaluating the use of domain-specific modeling in practice. In: Rossi, M., Sprinkle, J., Gray, J., Tolvanen, J.-P. (eds.) Proceedings DSM 2009, number B-108 in HSE Print. (2009). http://www.dsmforum.org/events/DSM09/Papers/Karna.pdf

  22. Kelly, S., Pohjonen, R.: Worst practices for domain-specific modeling. IEEE Softw. 26(4), 22–29 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Klyne, G., Carroll, J.J.: Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Feb 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/

  24. Object Management Group (OMG): Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification, Jan 2006. http://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/2.0/

  25. Object Management Group (OMG): Request for Proposal. MOF to RDF Structural Mapping in support of Linked Open Data, Dec 2009. http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2009-12-09

  26. Object Management Group (OMG): OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), May 2010. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.3/

  27. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–78 (2007). (Winter)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Piirainen, K., Gonzalez, R.A., Kolfschoten, G.: Quo vadis, design science?—a survey of literature. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) Proceedings DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 93–108. Springer, Berlin (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0_7

  29. Sprinkle, J., Karsai, G.: A domain-specific visual language for domain model evolution. J. Visual Lang. Comput. 15(3–4), 291–307 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sprinkle, J., Mernik, M., Tolvanen, J.-P., Spinellis, D.: What kinds of nails need a domain-specific hammer? IEEE Softw. 26(4), 15–18 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Uschold, M.: Where are the semantics in the semantic web? AI Magazine, 24(3):25–36, Fall 2003. http://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/1716

  32. W3C OWL Working Group: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language. Document Overview. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Oct 2009. http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-overview-20091027/

  33. Wende, C., Thieme, N., Zschaler, S.: A role-based approach towards modular language engineering. In: van den Brand, M., Gašević, D., Gray, J. (eds.), Software Language Engineering. Proceedings SLE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5969, pp. 254–273. Springer, Berlin (2009) doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12107-4-19

  34. Zschaler, S., Kolovos, D.S., Drivalos, N., Paige, R.F., Rashid, A.: Domain-specific metamodelling languages for software language engineering. In: van den Brand, M., Gašević, D., Gray, J. (eds.) Software Language Engineering. Proceedings SLE 2009. LNCS , vol. 5969, pp. 334–353. Springer, Berlin (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12107-4-23

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on previous versions of the article. Moreover, we thank the reviewers and participants of the SLE 2010 conference and the MPM 2010 workshop for comments and discussion on the papers that were the basis for this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SECAN-LAB, Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust, Université du Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Germany

    Benjamin Braatz

  2. Institut für Softwaretechnik und Theoretische Informatik, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Christoph Brandt

  3. Centre de Recherche Public Henri Tudor, Luxembourg, Germany

    Christoph Brandt

Authors
  1. Benjamin Braatz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoph Brandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Braatz.

Additional information

Communicated by Dr. Jeff Gray, Juha-Pekka Tolvanen,

and Matti Rossi.

B. Braatz has been supported by the National Research Fund (FNR), Luxembourg, and cofunded under the Marie Curie Actions of the European Commission (FP7-COFUND).

C. Brandt is currently funded by the National Research Fund (FNR), Luxembourg, in the Pearl Project ASINE at the Centre de Recherche Public (CRP) Henri Tudor, Luxembourg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Braatz, B., Brandt, C. A framework for families of domain-specific modelling languages. Softw Syst Model 13, 109–132 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-012-0271-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-012-0271-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation