Deriving Correspondence Relationships to Guide a Multi-view Heterogeneous Composition

  • Andrés Yie
  • Rubby Casallas
  • Dirk Deridder
  • Dennis Wagelaar
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6002)

Abstract

The use of several view models is a common practice to specify diverse concerns of a complex system. It is advantageous to use appropriate Domain-Specific Modeling Languages, at high-level of abstraction, to specify each concern. To actually produce the running application, it is necessary not only to transform the view-models into code, but also to compose them. We can establish at the high-level correspondence relationships between the concepts in the different concerns, but it is a complex task to compose the models at this level because we face a heterogeneous composition problem. Therefore, our strategy is to independently transform each view model into a common low-level language to perform a homogeneous composition. We create a mechanism to automatically derive correspondence relationships between the generated low-level models. These new correspondences contain the information to guide a homogeneous composition.

Keywords

Model Driven Engineering Model transformation Model composition Multi-paradigm modeling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Vangheluwe, H.: DEVS as a common denominator for multi-formalism hybrid systems modelling. In: CACSD 2000: IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Aided Control System Design, pp. 129–134 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bézivin, J., Bouzitouna, S., Del Fabro, M., Gervais, M.P., Jouault, F., Kolovos, D., Kurtev, I., Paige, R.F.: A canonical scheme for model composition. In: Rensink, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4066, pp. 346–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yie, A., Casallas, R., Deridder, D., Wagelaar, D.: A practical approach to multi-modeling views composition. Electronic Communications of the EASST 21 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lodderstedt, T., Basin, D., Doser, J.: SecureUML: A UML-based modeling language for model-driven security. In: Jézéquel, J.-M., Hussmann, H., Cook, S. (eds.) UML 2002. LNCS, vol. 2460, pp. 426–441. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aizenbud-Reshef, N., Nolan, B.T., Rubin, J., Shaham-Gafni, Y.: Model traceability. IBM Systems Journal 45(3), 515–526 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yie, A., Casallas, R., Wagelaar, D., Deridder, D.: An approach for evolving transformation chains. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 551–555. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: On the architectural alignment of atl and qvt. In: SAC 2006: Proceedings of the, ACM symposium on Applied computing, pp. 1188–1195 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yie, A., Wagelaar, D.: Advanced traceability for ATL. In: 1st International Workshop on Model Transformation with ATL, pp. 78–87 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dingel, J., Diskin, Z., Zito, A.: Understanding and improving UML package merge. Software and Systems Modeling 7(4), 443–467 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cicchetti, A., Di Ruscio, D.: Decoupling web application concerns through weaving operations. Science of Computer Programming 70(1), 62–86 (2008)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cibran, M., D’Hondt, M.: A slice of MDE with AOP: transforming high-level business rules to aspects. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 170–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ruiz-Gonzalez, D., Koch, N., Kroiss, C., Romero, J., Vallecillo, A.: Viewpoint synchronization of uwe models. In: MDWE 2009: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Model-Driven Web Engineering, pp. 46–60 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vanhooff, B., Baelen, S.V., Joosen, W., Berbers, Y.: Traceability as input for model transformations. In: Third ECMDA traceability workshop (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrés Yie
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rubby Casallas
    • 1
  • Dirk Deridder
    • 2
  • Dennis Wagelaar
    • 2
  1. 1.Grupo de Construcción de SoftwareUniversidad de los AndesColombia
  2. 2.Software Languages LabVrije Universiteit BrusselBelgium

Personalised recommendations