Advertisement

Abstracting Complex Languages through Transformation and Composition

  • Jendrik Johannes
  • Steffen Zschaler
  • Miguel A. Fernández
  • Antonio Castillo
  • Dimitrios S. Kolovos
  • Richard F. Paige
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5795)

Abstract

Domain-specific languages (DSLs) can simplify the development of complex software systems by providing domain-specific abstractions. However, the complexity of some domains has led to a number of DSLs that are themselves complex, limiting the original benefits of using DSLs. We show how to develop DSLs as abstractions of other DSLs by transfering translational approaches for textual DSLs into the domain of modelling languages. We argue that existing model transformation languages are at too low a level of abstraction for succinctly expressing transformations between abstract and concrete DSLs. Patterns identified in such model transformations can be used to raise the level of abstraction. We show how we can allow part of the transformation to be expressed using the concrete syntax of the concrete DSL.

Keywords

Model Transformation Partial Model Mapping Pattern Concrete Syntax Model Fragment 
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.
    van Deursen, A., Klint, P., Visser, J.: Domain-specific languages: an annotated bibliography. SIGPLAN Not. 35(6), 26–36 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Distributed Management Task Force Inc. (DMTF): Common Information Model Standards (2008), http://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim/ (Last visited 28/10/2008)
  3. 3.
    Johannes, J., Zschaler, S., Fernández, M.A., Castillo, A., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F.: Abstracting complex languages through transformation and composition. Technical Report TUD-FI09-08 July 2009, Technische Universität Dresden (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heidenreich, F., Henriksson, J., Johannes, J., Zschaler, S.: On language-independent model modularisation. In: Katz, S., et al. (eds.) Transactions on AOSD VI. LNCS, vol. 5560, pp. 39–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.: The Epsilon Transformation Language. In: Vallecillo, A., Gray, J., Pierantonio, A. (eds.) ICMT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5063, pp. 46–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rose, L.M., Paige, R.F., Kolovos, D.S., Polack, F.A.C.: The Epsilon Generation Language (EGL). In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5095, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kolovos, D.S., Rose, L.M., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C.: Raising the Level of Abstraction in the Development of GMF-based Graphical Model Editors. In: Proc. 3rd MISE Workshop of ICSE (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jendrik Johannes
    • 1
  • Steffen Zschaler
    • 2
  • Miguel A. Fernández
    • 3
  • Antonio Castillo
    • 3
  • Dimitrios S. Kolovos
    • 4
  • Richard F. Paige
    • 4
  1. 1.Technische Universität DresdenGermany
  2. 2.Computing DepartmentLancaster UniversityUK
  3. 3.Telefónica Research & DevelopmentSpain
  4. 4.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkUK

Personalised recommendations