Rich meta object facility formal integration platform: syntax, semantics and implementation

Original Paper


Traditionally formal papers bridge interpretation gaps of informal OMG specifications. The papers are often not holistic but rather concentrate on certain aspects of the original specification. This increases often the gap between research and practice because it is difficult to understand and combine different semantic methodologies. This paper formalizes and extends the Meta Object Facility of the Object Management Group towards a platform to explore and combine formal methodologies. The extension focuses primarily on algorithms with an action language to define all kinds of normative and desired behavior. The methodology includes mechanisms to support arbitrary dependent language layers. Exemplary syntax and semantics of the methodology is introduced on base of the original specifications. This is complemented by an implementation supporting the graphical definition and simulation of instantiated models. The platform binding is supported by code generators allowing the easy connection of powerful analysis techniques. The platform binding can be done on all layers finding the optimal mixture between independent semantic variants currently in the discussion and established dependent semantic variants strengthening the bridge between research and practice.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Akehurst DH, Kent S (2002) A relational approach to defining transformations in a metamodel. In: UML’02: proceedings of the 5th international conference on the unified modeling language, pp 243–258Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alanen M, Porres I (2005) Subset and union properties in modeling languages. Technical report, Åbo Akademi University Department of Information TechnologiesGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Damm W, Josko B, Pnueli A, Votintseva A (2005) A discrete-time UML semantics for concurrency and communication in safety-critical applications. Sci Comp Programm 55: 81–115MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eclipse Modeling Framework., last visited 21-07-2008
  5. 5.
    Eclipse Modeling Framework Technology., last visited 21-07-2008
  6. 6.
    Eshuis R, Wieringa R (2001) A formal semantics for UML activity diagrams—formalising workflow modelsGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graphical Modeling Framework., last visited 21-07-2008
  8. 8.
    Engels G, Heckel R, Küster JM (2001) Rule-based specification of behavioral consistency based on the UML meta model. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2185, p 272ffGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Object Management Group. MOF—Meta Object Facility Core Specification Version 2.0., last visited 08.07.2008
  10. 10.
    Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language 2.0 Infrastructure Specification., last visited 04.05.2007
  11. 11.
    Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language 2.1.1 Superstructure Specification., last visited 04.05.2007
  12. 12.
    Object Management Group. CWM—Common Warehouse Metamodel v1.1, 2003. Last visited 08.07.2008Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Object Management Group. SPEM—Software Process Engineering Metamodel v2.0, 2008. Last visited 08.07.2008Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buschermöhle R, Robbe O (2008) Rich meta object facility, complete specification. Technical report, OFFISGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Störrle H (2004) Semantic UML 2.0 Activities. In: International symposium on visual languages/human computer centered systemsGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Störrle H (2004) Semantics and verification of data flow in UML 2.0 Activities. Visual Languages and Formal MethodsGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Varró D, Pataricza A (2003) VPM: mathematics of metamodeling is metamodeling mathematics. J Softw Syst Model 1: 1–24Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    XMI—XML Metadata Interchange Specification v1.2., last visited May 2006

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OFFISOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations