Abstract

Domain-specific modelling languages provide modelling mea- ns tailored to a particular domain. In Model-driven Engineering, it is common practice to specify such languages by modelling means as well. In this paper, we investigate structural operational semantics for domain-specific modelling languages. Thereby, we rely completely on standard modelling means as provided by the Object Management Group. As examples, we specify structural operational semantics for Petri nets as well as for a stream -oriented language from the domain of earthquake detection. The approach is useful to provide prototypical tool support for domain-specific modelling languages. It can be instrumented to specify interpreters and debuggers in a generic way.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language: Infrastructure, version 2.0 (July 2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kelly, S., Tolvanen, J.P.: Domain-Specific Modeling. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cook, S.: Domain-specific modeling. Microsoft Architect Journal 9 (August 2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Plotkin, G.D.: A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, University of Aarhus (1981)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Deursen, A., Klint, P., Visser, J.: Domain-specific languages: an annotated bibliography. SIGPLAN Not 35(6), 26–36 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Object Management Group: Meta Object Facility Core Specification, version 2.0 (January 2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Object Management Group: Object Constraint Language, version 2.0 (May 2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alanen, M., Porres, I.: Basic operations over models containing subset and union properties. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 469–483. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Object Management Group: MOF Query/View/Transformation, Final Adopted Specification (July 2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    da Silva, F.Q.B.: Correctness Proofs of Compilers and Debuggers: an Approach Based on Structural Operational Semantics. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nielson, H.R., Nielson, F.: Semantics with Applications: A Formal Introduction. Wiley, Chichester (1992)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aceto, L., Fokkink, W., Verhoef, C.: Structural operational semantics. In: Bergstra, J., Ponse, A., Smolka, S. (eds.) Handbook of Process Algebra. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barendregt, H.: The Lambda Calculus its Syntax and Semantics, 2nd edn. North Holland, Amsterdam (1987)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sadilek, D., Theisselmann, F., Wachsmuth, G.: Challenges for model-driven development of self-organising disaster management information systems. In: IRTGW 2006: Proceedings of the International Research Training Groups Workshop, Dagstuhl, Germany, Berlin, GITO-Verlag, pp. 24–26 (November 2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stewart, S.W.: Real time detection and location of local seismic events in central California. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 67, 433–452 (1977)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Budinsky, F., Merks, E., Steinberg, D.: Eclipse Modeling Framework, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ikv: Company home page (2007), http://www.ikv.de
  18. 18.
    Wachsmuth, G.: Metamodel adaptation and model co-adaptation. In: Ernst, E. (ed.) ECOOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4609. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sadilek, D.A., Wachsmuth, G.: Prototyping visual interpreters and debuggers for domain-specific modelling languages. In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5095. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Object Management Group: MDA Guide Version 1.0.1 (June 2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hausmann, J.H.: Dynamic meta modeling: A semantics description technique for visual modeling languages. PhD thesis, University of Paderborn (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Engels, G., Hausmann, J.H., Heckel, R., Sauer, S.: Dynamic meta modeling: A graphical approach to the operational semantics of behavioral diagrams in uml. In: Evans, A., Kent, S., Selic, B. (eds.) UML 2000. LNCS, vol. 1939, pp. 323–337. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sunyé, G., Pennaneach, F., Ho, W.M., Guennec, A.L., Jéquel, J.M.: Using uml action semantics for executable modeling and beyond. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, pp. 433–447. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scheidgen, M., Fischer, J.: Human comprehensible and machine processable specifications of operational semantics. In: Akehurst, D.H., Vogel, R., Paige, R.F. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4530, pp. 157–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Di Ruscio, D., Jouault, F., Kurtev, I., Bezivin, J., Pierantonio, A.: Extending AMMA for supporting dynamic semantics specifications of DSLs. Technical Report HAL - CCSd - CNRS, Laboratoire D’Informatique de Nantes-Atlantique (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Muller, P., Fleurey, F., Jézéquel, J.: Weaving executability into object-oriented meta-languages. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 264–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fleurey, F., Drey, Z., Vojtisek, D., Faucher, C.: Kermeta language (October 2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Clark, T., Evans, A., Sammut, P., Willans, J.: Applied metamodelling: A foundation for language driven development (September 2004), http://www.xactium.com

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Wachsmuth
    • 1
  1. 1.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations