On Lightweight Metamodel Extension to Support Modeling Tools Agility

  • Hugo Bruneliere
  • Jokin Garcia
  • Philippe Desfray
  • Djamel Eddine Khelladi
  • Regina Hebig
  • Reda Bendraou
  • Jordi Cabot
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9153)


Modeling in real industrial projects implies dealing with different models, metamodels and supporting tools. They continuously have to be adapted to changing requirements, involving (often costly) problems in terms of traceability, coherence or interoperability. To this intent, solutions ensuring a better adaptability and flexibility of modeling tools are needed. As metamodels are cornerstones in such tools, metamodel extension capabilities are fundamental. However, current modeling frameworks are not flexible or dynamic enough. Thus, following the ongoing OMG MOF Extension Facility (MEF) RFP, this paper proposes a generic lightweight metamodel extension mechanism developed as part of the MoNoGe collaborative project. A base list of metamodel extension operators as well as a DSL for easily using them are introduced. Two different implementations of this extension mechanism (including a model-level support when (un)applying metamodel extensions) are also described, respectively based on Eclipse/EMF and the Modelio modeling environment.


Modeling tool Metamodel extension Adaptability  Flexibility 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Clasen, C., Jouault, F., Cabot, J.: VirtualEMF: a model virtualization tool. In: De Troyer, O., Bauzer Medeiros, C., Billen, R., Hallot, P., Simitsis, A., Van Mingroot, H. (eds.) ER Workshops 2011. LNCS, vol. 6999, pp. 332–335. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Di Ruscio, D., Lämmel, R., Pierantonio, A.: Automated Co-evolution of GMF Editor Models, pp. 143–162 (2010). CoRR,abs/1006.5761Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Didonet Del Fabro, M., Bézivin, J., Valduriez, P.: Weaving models with the eclipse AMW plugin. In: Eclipse Modeling Symposium, Eclipse Summit Europe (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garcés, K., Vara, J.M., Jouault, F., Marcos, E.: Adapting Transformations to Metamodel Changes via External Transformation Composition. Software & Systems Modeling 13(2), 789–806 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heidenreich, F., Henriksson, J., Johannes, J., Zschaler, S.: On language-independent model modularisation. In: Katz, S., Ossher, H., France, R., Jézéquel, J.-M. (eds.) Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development VI. LNCS, vol. 5560, pp. 39–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hutchinson, J., Rouncefield, M., Whittle, J.: Model-driven engineering practices in industry. In: 33rd ICSE, 2011, pp. 633–642. IEEE, May 2011Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jayaraman, P., Whittle, J., Elkhodary, A.M., Gomaa, H.: Model composition in product lines and feature interaction detection using critical pair analysis. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 151–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khelladi, D.E., Hebig, R., Bendraou, R., Robin, J., Gervais, M.-P.: Detecting complex changes during metamodel evolution. In: Zdravkovic, J., Kirikova, M., Johannesson, P. (eds.) CAiSE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9097, pp. 263–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2015) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C.: Merging models with the epsilon merging language (EML). In: Wang, J., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 215–229. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kolovos, D.S., Rose, L.M., Drivalos Matragkas, N., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C., Fernandes, K.J.: Constructing and navigating non-invasive model decorations. In: Tratt, L., Gogolla, M. (eds.) ICMT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6142, pp. 138–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kusel, A., Etzlstorfer, J., Kapsammer, E., Retschitzegger, W., Schoenboeck, J., Schwinger, W., Wimmer, M.: Systematic Co-evolution of OCL expressions. In: 11th APCCM), vol. 27, p. 30 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Langer, P., Wieland, K., Wimmer, M., Cabot, J.: EMF Profiles: A Lightweight Extension Approach for EMF Models. Journal of Object Technology 11(1), 1–29 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG. Metamodel Extension Facility (MEF) RFP (2011). http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc.cgi?ad/2011-6-22. (Accessed March-2015)
  14. 14.
    OMG. Unified Modeling Language (UML) (2011). http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/. (Accessed March-2015)
  15. 15.
    Pottinger, R.A., Bernstein, P.A.: Merging models based on given correspondences. In: 29th VLDB 2003, pp. 862–873. Morgan Kaufmann, San Fransisco, September 2003Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reddy, R., France, R., Ghosh, S., Fleurey, F., Baudry, B.: Model composition - a signature-based approach. In: Aspect Oriented Modeling (AOM) Workshop (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rose, L.M., Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Williams, J.R., Kolovos, D.S., Garcés, K., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C.: A Comparison of model migration tools. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6394, pp. 61–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sabetzadeh, M., Easterbrook, S.: View Merging in the Presence of Incompleteness and Inconsistency. Requirements Engineering 11(3), 174–193 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Völter, M.: MD*/DSL best practices (version 2.0), April 2011Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugo Bruneliere
    • 1
  • Jokin Garcia
    • 1
  • Philippe Desfray
    • 2
  • Djamel Eddine Khelladi
    • 3
  • Regina Hebig
    • 3
  • Reda Bendraou
    • 3
  • Jordi Cabot
    • 4
  1. 1.AtlanModTeam (Inria, Mines Nantes & LINA)NantesFrance
  2. 2.SOFTEAM CadextanParisFrance
  3. 3.UPMC - LIP6ParisFrance
  4. 4.ICREA - UOCBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations