Your browser does not support JavaScript!
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

Formalising model transformation rules for UML/MOF 2

Formalising model transformation rules for UML/MOF 2

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
£12.50
(plus tax if applicable)
Add to cart
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for £75.00
(plus taxes if applicable)
Add to cart

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Name:*
Email:*
Your details
Name:*
Email:*
Department:*
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
 
 
 
 
 
IET Software — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology
Published

Model-driven software development, today's state-of-the-art approach to the design of software, can be applied in various domains and thus demands a variety of domain-specific modelling languages. The specification of a domain-specific modelling language's syntax and semantics can in turn be specified based on models, which represent the approach of metamodelling as a special form of language engineering. The latest version of the unified modelling language 2 (UML 2) and its subset the meta object facility 2 (MOF 2) provide sufficient support for metamodelling, a modelling language's abstract syntax. Furthermore, based on the description of the abstract syntax, a language's static semantics can simply be specified by the object constraint language (OCL) as UML/MOF's natural constraint language, whereas the description of an MOF compliant language's dynamic semantics is still not covered. The authors try to close this gap by integrating MOF/OCL with graph transformations for the specification of dynamic aspects of modelling languages and tools. The formalisation of such an integration is non-trivial because of the fact that UML/MOF 2 offer a rather unusual and sophisticated association concept (graph model). Although there are many approaches, which formalise graph transformations in general and first approaches that offer a precise specification of the semantics of the association concepts of UML/MOF 2, there is still a lack in bringing both together. Here, the authors close this gap by formalising graph transformations that work on a UML/MOF 2 compatible graph model.

Inspec keywords: formal specification; Unified Modeling Language; graph theory; computational linguistics

Other keywords: domain-specific modelling language syntax; meta object facility 2; object constraint language; model-driven software development; UML; Unified Modelling Language; graph transformation; domain-specific modelling language semantics

Subjects: Formal languages and computational linguistics; Formal methods

References

    1. 1)
      • Stevens, P.: `On associations in the unified modeling language', UML 2001 – The Unified Modeling Language. Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools: 4th International Conf., 2001, Toronto, Canada, Springer Verlag, p. 361–375.
    2. 2)
      • Diskin, Z., Dingel, J.: `Mappings, maps and tables: a formal semantics for UML2 associations', Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS 2006), 2006, Springer Verlag, p. 230–244.
    3. 3)
      • Kim, S.K., Carrington, D.: `Formalizing the UML class diagram using object-Z', Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. UML: UML'99, 1999, Springer Verlag, p. 83–98.
    4. 4)
      • Object Management Group: ‘Unified modeling language: infrastructure’, 2007, Formal/07-02-06.
    5. 5)
      • Amelunxen, C., Königs, A., Rötschke, T., Schürr, A.: `MOFLON: A standard-compliant metamodeling framework with graph transformations', Model driven architecture – foundations and applications: Second European Conference, 2006, 4066, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, p. 361–375, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS).
    6. 6)
      • Object Management Group: ‘Object constraint language’;2006, Formal/06-05-01.
    7. 7)
      • H. Ehrig , K. Ehrig , U. Prange , G. Taentzer . (2006) Fundamentals of algebraic graph transformation, EATCS monographs in theoretical computer science.
    8. 8)
      • Object Management Group: ‘Unified modeling language: superstructure’; 2007. Formal/2007-02-05.
    9. 9)
      • M. Broy , M.L. Crane , J. Dingel , A. Hartman , B. Rumpe , B. Selic , T. Kühne . (2006) 2nd UML 2 Semantics Symp.: Formal Semantics for UML, MoDELS 2006 Workshops.
    10. 10)
      • Zündorf, A.: `Rigorous object oriented software development', 2001, Habilitation, University of Paderborn.
    11. 11)
      • A. Agrawal , G. Karsai , F. Shi . (2003) Graph transformations on domain-specific models.
    12. 12)
      • Amelunxen, C., Königs, A., Rötschke, T., Schürr, A.: `MOSL: Composing a visual language for a metamodeling framework', Proc. IEEE Symp. Visual Languages and Human Centered Computing, 2006.
    13. 13)
      • Shroff, M., France, R.: `Towards a formalization of UML class structures in Z', Proc. 21st Int. Computer Software and Applications Conf. (COMPSAC 1997), 1997, p. 646, Available at: citeseer.ist.psu.edu/shroff97towards.html.
    14. 14)
      • Object Management Group: ‘Meta object facility (MOF) 2.0 query/view/transformation specification’, 2007, Ptc/07-07-07.
    15. 15)
      • France, R., Evans, A., Lano, K.: `The UML as a formal modeling notation', Proc. OOPSLA'97 Workshop on Object-oriented Behavioral Semantics, 1997, Technische Universität München, p. 75–81, TUMI9737, Available at: citeseer.ist.psu.edu/france97uml.html.
    16. 16)
      • G. Rozenberg . (1997) Handbook of graph grammars and computing by graph transformation.
    17. 17)
      • G. Taentzer , C. Ermel , M. Rudolf , H. Ehrig , G. Engels , H.J. Kreowski , G. Rozenberg . (1999) The AGG-approach: language and tool environment, Handbook of graph grammars and computing by graph transformation: applications, languages and tools.
    18. 18)
      • A. Schürr , G. Rozenberg . (1997) Programmed graph replacement systems, Handbook of graph grammars and computing by graph transformation: foundations.
    19. 19)
      • MOFLON Homepage, 2007, available at: http://www.moflon.org.
    20. 20)
      • A. Schürr , A. Winter , A. Zündorf , H. Ehrig , G. Engels , H. Kreowski , G. Rozenberg . (1999) PROGRES: language and environment, Handbook on graph grammars and computing by graph transformation: Applications, Languages, and Tools.
    21. 21)
      • FUJABA Homepage, 2007, available at: http://www.fujaba.de.
    22. 22)
      • Alanen, M., Porres, I.: `Basic operations over models containing subset and union properties', Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS 2006), 2006, Springer Verlag, p. 469–483.
    23. 23)
      • Rumbaugh, J.: `Relations as semantic constructs in an object-oriented language', Proc. ACM Conf. Object-Oriented Programming: Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA'87), 1987, Orlando, Florida, USA, ACM Press, p. 466–481.
    24. 24)
      • Object Management Group: ‘Meta object facility (MOF) 2.0 core specification’, 2006, Formal/06-01-01.
    25. 25)
      • Czarnecki, H.: `Classification of model transformation approaches', Proc. Generative Techniques in the context of Model Driven Architecture, 2003, available at: http://www.softmetaware.com/oopsla2003/czarnecki.pdf.
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-sen_20070076
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-sen_20070076
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
Print this page
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address