Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Software and Systems Modeling
Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling 1/2014

01.02.2014 | Theme Section Paper

A framework for families of domain-specific modelling languages

verfasst von: Benjamin Braatz, Christoph Brandt

Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling | Ausgabe 1/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

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.
Vorheriger Artikel An ontology-based framework for domain-specific modeling
Nächster Artikel DropsBox: the Dresden Open Software Toolbox

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
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.
 
Literatur
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.
6.
Braatz, B.: Formal modelling and application of graph transformations in the resource description framework. PhD thesis. Technische Universität, Berlin (2009)
7.
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)CrossRefMATHMathSciNet
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.
13.
14.
15.
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.
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.
21.
22.
Kelly, S., Pohjonen, R.: Worst practices for domain-specific modeling. IEEE Softw. 26(4), 22–29 (2009)CrossRef
23.
24.
25.
26.
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)CrossRef
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)CrossRef
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)CrossRef
31.
32.
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
Metadaten
Titel
A framework for families of domain-specific modelling languages
verfasst von
Benjamin Braatz
Christoph Brandt
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2014
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Software and Systems Modeling / Ausgabe 1/2014
Print ISSN: 1619-1366
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-1374
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-012-0271-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2014

Software and Systems Modeling 1/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Theme Section Paper

DropsBox: the Dresden Open Software Toolbox

Guest Editorial

Software and systems modeling with graph transformations theme issue of the Journal on Software and Systems Modeling

Theme Section Paper

Effective development of automation systems through domain-specific modeling in a small enterprise context

Theme Section Paper

A transformation-based approach to context-aware modelling

Editorial

The 2013 “State of the Journal” report

Regular Paper

An approach for modeling and detecting software performance antipatterns based on first-order logics

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise