Advertisement

Mapping-Aware Megamodeling: Design Patterns and Laws

  • Zinovy Diskin
  • Sahar Kokaly
  • Tom Maibaum
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8225)

Abstract

Megamodeling is the activity of specifying systems of models and mappings, their properties, and operations over them. The latter functionality is the most important for applications, and megamodels are often used as an abstract workflow language for model processing. To be independent of a particular modeling language, typical megamodels reduce relationships between models to unstructured edges encoding nothing but a labeled pair of models, thus creating a significant gap between megamodels and code implementing them. To bridge the gap, we propose mapping-aware megamodels, which treat edges as model mappings: structured sets of links (pairs of model elements) rather than pairs of models. The workflow can then be represented as an algebraic term built from elementary operations with models and model mappings.

Keywords

Model Transformation Design Pattern Data Graph Graph Transformation Elementary Block 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alagić, S., Bernstein, P.A.: A model theory for generic schema management. In: Ghelli, G., Grahne, G. (eds.) DBPL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2397, pp. 228–246. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barr, M., Wells, C.: Category theory for computing science. Prentice Hall (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernstein, P., Melnik, S.: Model management 2.0: manipulating richer mappings. In: SIGMOD Conference, pp. 1–12 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bézivin, J., Jouault, F., Rosenthal, P., Valduriez, P.: Modeling in the large and modeling in the small. In: Aßmann, U., Akşit, M., Rensink, A. (eds.) MDAFA 2003. LNCS, vol. 3599, pp. 33–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boronat, A., Knapp, A., Meseguer, J., Wirsing, M.: What is a multi-modeling language? In: Corradini, A., Montanari, U. (eds.) WADT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5486, pp. 71–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diskin, Z.: Towards generic formal semantics for consistency of heterogeneous multimodels. Tech. Rep. GSDLAB 2011-02-01, University of Waterloo (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diskin, Z., Maibaum, T., Czarnecki, K.: Intermodeling, queries, and kleisli categories. In: de Lara, J., Zisman, A. (eds.) FASE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7212, pp. 163–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diskin, Z., Xiong, Y., Czarnecki, K.: Specifying overlaps of heterogeneous models for global consistency checking. In: Dingel, J., Solberg, A. (eds.) MODELS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6627, pp. 165–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diskin, Z., Xiong, Y., Czarnecki, K., Ehrig, H., Hermann, F., Orejas, F.: From state- to delta-based bidirectional model transformations: The symmetric case. In: Whittle, et al. [35], pp. 304–318Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diskin, Z.: Mathematics of generic specifications for model management. In: Rivero, L.C., Doorn, J.H., Ferraggine, V.E. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Database Technologies and Applications, pp. 351–366. Idea Group (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diskin, Z.: Model synchronization: Mappings, tiles, and categories. In: Fernandes, J.M., Lämmel, R., Visser, J., Saraiva, J. (eds.) GTTSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 6491, pp. 92–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diskin, Z.: Lax lenses. Tech. Rep. GSDLab-TR 2013-03-01, University of Waterloo (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diskin, Z., Easterbrook, S.M., Dingel, J.: Engineering associations: From models to code and back through semantics. In: Paige, R.F., Meyer, B. (eds.) TOOLS (46). LNCS, vol. 11, pp. 336–355. Springer, Heidelberg (1974)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Diskin, Z., Kadish, B.: Variable set semantics for keyed generalized sketches: formal semantics for object identity and abstract syntax for conceptual modeling. Data Knowl. Eng. 47(1), 1–59 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Diskin, Z., Kadish, B., Piessens, F., Johnson, M.: Universal arrow foundations for visual modeling. In: Anderson, M., Cheng, P., Haarslev, V. (eds.) Diagrams 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1889, pp. 345–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Diskin, Z., Wolter, U.: A diagrammatic logic for object-oriented visual modeling. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 203(6), 19–41 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taenzer, G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ehrig, H., Heckel, R., Taentzer, G., Engels, G.: A combined reference model- and view-based approach to system specification. Int. Journal of Software and Knowledge Engeneering 7, 457–477 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Favre, J.-M., NGuyen, T.: Towards a megamodel to model software evolution through transformations. In: SETRA Workshop. Elsevier ENCTS (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R.: Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley Professional (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goguen, J.A., Burstall, R.M.: Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming. Journal of ACM 39(1), 95–146 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hermann, F., Ehrig, H., Orejas, F., Czarnecki, K., Diskin, Z., Xiong, Y.: Correctness of model synchronization based on triple graph grammars. In: Whittle et al. [35], pp. 668–682Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jüllig, R., Srinivas, Y.V., Liu, J.: Specware: An advanced evironment for the formal development of complex software systems. In: Nivat, M., Wirsing, M. (eds.) AMAST 1996. LNCS, vol. 1101, pp. 551–554. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kling, W., Jouault, F., Wagelaar, D., Brambilla, M., Cabot, J.: MoScript: A DSL for querying and manipulating model repositories. In: Sloane, A., Aßmann, U. (eds.) SLE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6940, pp. 180–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maibaum, T.S.E.: Conservative extensions, interpretations between theories and all that! In: Bidoit, M., Dauchet, M. (eds.) CAAP 1997, FASE 1997, and TAPSOFT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1214, pp. 40–66. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Makkai, M.: Generalized sketches as a framework for completeness theorems. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 115, 49–79, 179–212, 214–274 (1997)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mossakowski, T., Tarlecki, A.: Heterogeneous logical environments for distributed specifications. In: Corradini, A., Montanari, U. (eds.) WADT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5486, pp. 266–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Muller, P.-A., Fondement, F., Baudry, B., Combemale, B.: Modeling modeling modeling. SoSym 11(3), 347–359 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    NECSIS: Network for the Engineering of Complex Software-Intensive Systems for Automotive Systems (2011), https://www.necsis.ca/
  30. 30.
    Rossini, A., de Lara, J., Guerra, E., Rutle, A., Lamo, Y.: A graph transformation-based semantics for deep metamodelling. In: Schürr, A., Varró, D., Varró, G. (eds.) AGTIVE 2011. LNCS, vol. 7233, pp. 19–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rutle, A., Rossini, A., Lamo, Y., Wolter, U.: A diagrammatic formalisation of MOF-based modelling languages. In: Oriol, M., Meyer, B. (eds.) TOOLS EUROPE 2009. LNBIP, vol. 33, pp. 37–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rutle, A., Rossini, A., Lamo, Y., Wolter, U.: A formalisation of constraint-aware model transformations. In: Rosenblum, D.S., Taentzer, G. (eds.) FASE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6013, pp. 13–28. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sabetzadeh, M., Nejati, S., Liaskos, S., Easterbrook, S.M., Chechik, M.: Consistency checking of conceptual models via model merging. In: RE. pp. 221–230 (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stevens, P.: Bidirectional model transformations in qvt: semantic issues and open questions. Software and System Modeling 9(1), 7–20 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.): MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6981. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zinovy Diskin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sahar Kokaly
    • 1
  • Tom Maibaum
    • 1
  1. 1.NECSISMcMaster UniversityCanada
  2. 2.University of WaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations