Advertisement

Formal Definition of MOF 2.0 Metamodel Components and Composition

  • Ingo Weisemöller
  • Andy Schürr
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5301)

Abstract

The Meta Object Facility (MOF) is one of the most frequently used languages for the definition of a DSL’s abstract syntax. However, its lack of sophisticated modularization concepts in comparison to GPLs such as Ada or component-oriented ADLs makes it hard to maintain a large number of complex metamodels. MOF 2.0 packages can be used to a certain extent to define, refine, and compose language descriptions, but do not offer appropriate support for information hiding as well as for the specification of parametrizable metamodeling components. Motivated by a running example we, therefore, extend MOF 2.0 with concepts for the specification of proper metamodel components with provided export and required import interfaces. Furthermore, we present a formalization of a metamodel component composition operator based on graph morphisms. The resulting component-oriented version of MOF allows language developers to describe reoccurring, parametrizable sublanguages once and instantiate them differently in several metamodels.

Keywords

Metamodeling MOF 2.0 software components reusability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amelunxen, C., Schürr, A.: Formalizing Model Transformation Rules for UML/MOF 2. IET Software Journal (accepted for publication, 2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amlio, N., Stepney, S., Polack, F.: A Formal Template Language Enabling Metaproof. In: Misra, J., Nipkow, T., Sekerinski, E. (eds.) FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4085, pp. 252–267. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ehrig, H., Mahr, B.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 2: Module Specifications and Constraints. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Emerson, M., Sztipanovits, J.: Techniques for metamodel composition. In: OOPSLA – 6th Workshop on Domain Specific Modeling, pp. 123–139 (October 2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krahn, H., Rumpe, B., Völkel, S.: Efficient Editor Generation for Compositional DSLs in Eclipse. In: Proceedings of the 7th OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling (DSM 2007), Montreal, Quebec, Canada (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Object Management Group, Inc. Unified Modeling Language: Infrastructure(July 2005), http://doc.omg.org/formal/2005-07-05.pdf
  7. 7.
    Object Management Group, Inc. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure (July 2005), http://doc.omg.org/formal/2005-07-04.pdf
  8. 8.
    Object Management Group, Inc. Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification (January 2006), http://doc.omg.org/formal/2006-01-01.pdf
  9. 9.
    Object Management Group, Inc. Object Constraint Language (May 2006), http://doc.omg.org/formal/06-05-01.pdf
  10. 10.
    Taentzer, G.: Parallel and Distributed Graph Transformation: Formal Description and Application to Communication-Based Systems. PhD thesis, Technische Universität Berlin (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Winter, A.: Referenz-Metaschema für visuelle Modellierungssprachen. Deutscher Universitätsverlag, Wiesbaden, Dissertation (in german), Institut für Informatik. Universität Koblenz-Landau (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingo Weisemöller
    • 1
  • Andy Schürr
    • 1
  1. 1.Fachgebiet EchtzeitsystemeTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations