A Generative Approach to Define Rich Domain-Specific Trace Metamodels

  • Erwan Bousse
  • Tanja Mayerhofer
  • Benoit Combemale
  • Benoit Baudry
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9153)

Abstract

Executable Domain-Specific Modeling Languages (xDSMLs) open many possibilities for performing early verification and validation (V&V) of systems. Dynamic V&V approaches rely on execution traces, which represent the evolution of models during their execution. In order to construct traces, generic trace metamodels can be used. Yet, regarding trace manipulations, they lack both efficiency because of their sequential structure, and usability because of their gap to the xDSML. Our contribution is a generative approach that defines a rich and domain-specific trace metamodel enabling the construction of execution traces for models conforming to a given xDSML. Efficiency is increased by providing a variety of navigation paths within traces, while usability is improved by narrowing the concepts of the trace metamodel to fit the considered xDSML. We evaluated our approach by generating a trace metamodel for fUML and using it for semantic differencing, which is an important V&V activity in the realm of model evolution. Results show a significant performance improvement and simplification of the semantic differencing rules as compared to the usage of a generic trace metamodel.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alawneh, L., Hamou-Lhadj, A.: Execution traces: a new domain that requires the creation of a standard metamodel. In: Ślezak, D., Kim, T., Kiumi, A., Jiang, T., Verner, J., Abrahão, S. (eds.) ASEA 2009. CCIS, vol. 59, pp. 253–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bousse, E., Combemale, B., Baudry, B.: Scalable armies of model clones through data sharing. In: Dingel, J., Schulte, W., Ramos, I., Abrahão, S., Insfran, E. (eds.) MODELS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8767, pp. 286–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bousse, E., Combemale, B., Baudry, B.: Towards scalable multidimensional execution traces for xDSMLs. In: 11th Workshop on Model Design, Verification and Validation. CEUR-WS, vol. 1235, pp. 13–18. CEUR (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Combemale, B., Crégut, X., Garoche, P.L., Thirioux, X.: Essay on Semantics Definition in MDE - An Instrumented Approach for Model Verification. Journal of Software 4(9), 943–958 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Combemale, B., Crégut, X., Pantel, M.: A design pattern to build executable DSMLs and associated V&V tools. In: 19th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 282–287. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corley, J., Eddy, B.P., Gray, J.: Towards efficient and scalabale omniscient debugging for model transformations. In: 14th Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling, pp. 13–18. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    DeAntoni, J., Mallet, F.: Timesquare: treat your models with logical time. In: Furia, C.A., Nanz, S. (eds.) TOOLS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7304, pp. 34–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eschweiler, D., Wagner, M., Geimer, M., Knüpfer, A., Nagel, W.E., Wolf, F.: Open trace format 2: the next generation of scalable trace formats and support libraries. In: 14th Int. Conf. on Parallel Computing. Advances in Parallel Computing, vol. 22, pp. 481–490. IOS Press (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gogolla, M., Hamann, L., Hilken, F., Kuhlmann, M., France, R.B.: From application models to filmstrip models: an approach to automatic validation of model dynamics. In: Modellierung 2014. LNI, vol. 225, pp. 273–288. GI (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamou-Lhadj, A., Lethbridge, T.C.: A metamodel for the compact but lossless exchange of execution traces. Software & Systems Modeling 11(1), 77–98 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hegedüs, A., Ráth, I., Varró, D.: Replaying Execution Trace Models for Dynamic Modeling Languages. Periodica Polytechnica - Electrical Engineering 56(3), 71–82 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., Rouncefield, M., Kristoffersen, S.: Empirical assessment of MDE in industry. In: 33rd Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 471–480. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jézéquel, J.M., Combemale, B., Barais, O., Monperrus, M., Fouquet, F.: Mashup of metalanguages and its implementation in the Kermeta language workbench. Software & Systems Modeling, 1–16 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kolovos, D.S., Di Ruscio, D., Pierantonio, A., Paige, R.F.: Different models for model matching: an analysis of approaches to support model differencing. In: 2009 ICSE Workshop on Comparison and Versioning of Software Models, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Langer, P., Mayerhofer, T., Kappel, G.: Semantic model differencing utilizing behavioral semantics specifications. In: Dingel, J., Schulte, W., Ramos, I., Abrahão, S., Insfran, E. (eds.) MODELS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8767, pp. 116–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: A brief account of runtime verification. The Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 78(5), 293–303 (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maoz, S., Ringert, J.O., Rumpe, B.: ADDiff: semantic differencing for activity diagrams. In: 19th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium and 13th Europ. Conf. on Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 179–189. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mayerhofer, T., Langer, P., Kappel, G.: A runtime model for fUML. In: 7th Workshop on Models@run.time, pp. 53–58. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mayerhofer, T., Langer, P., Wimmer, M., Kappel, G.: xMOF: executable DSMLs based on fUML. In: Erwig, M., Paige, R.F., Van Wyk, E. (eds.) SLE 2013. LNCS, vol. 8225, pp. 56–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meyers, B., Deshayes, R., Lucio, L., Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H., Wimmer, M.: ProMoBox: a framework for generating domain-specific property languages. In: Combemale, B., Pearce, D.J., Barais, O., Vinju, J.J. (eds.) SLE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8706, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group: Semantics of a Foundational Subset for Executable UML Models (fUML), V 1.1, August 2013. http://www.omg.org/spec/FUML/1.1
  22. 22.
    Tatibouët, J., Cuccuru, A., Gérard, S., Terrier, F.: Formalizing execution semantics of UML profiles with fUML models. In: Dingel, J., Schulte, W., Ramos, I., Abrahão, S., Insfran, E. (eds.) MODELS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8767, pp. 133–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erwan Bousse
    • 1
  • Tanja Mayerhofer
    • 2
  • Benoit Combemale
    • 3
  • Benoit Baudry
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Rennes 1RennesFrance
  2. 2.Vienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  3. 3.InriaRennes CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations