Experiments in Model Driven Composition of User Interfaces

  • Audrey Occello
  • Cedric Joffroy
  • Anne-Marie Dery-Pinna
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6115)


Reusing and composing pieces of software is a common practice in software engineering. However, reusing the user interfaces that come with software systems is still an ongoing work. The Alias framework helps developers to reuse and compose user interfaces according to the way they are composing new systems from smaller units as a mean of speeding up the design process. In this paper we describe how we rely on Model Driven Engineering to operationalize our composition process.


User interface composition metamodeling transformations 


  1. 1.
    Natis, Y.V.: Service-oriented architecture scenario. Gartner, Inc. (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heineman, G., Councill, W. (eds.): Component-Based Software Engineering, Putting the Pieces Together. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calvary, G., Coutaz, J., Thevenin, D., Limbourg, Q., Bouillon, L., Vanderdonckt, J.: A unifying reference framework for multi-target user interfaces. Interacting With Computers 15/3, 289–308 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schmidt, D.C.: Model-Driven Engineering. IEEE Computer 39, 25–32 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    OMG: Model Driven Architecture. OMG Document ormsc/2001-07-01 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pinna-Déry, A.M., Joffroy, C., Renevier, P., Riveill, M., Vergoni, C.: ALIAS: A Set of Abstract Languages for User Interface Assembly. In: SEA 2008, Orlando, Florida, USA, IASTED, pp. 77–82. ACTA Press (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Object Managemant Group: Unified Modeling Language Specification 2. OMG Document formal/2009-02-02 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marino, J., Rowley, M.: Understanding SCA (Service Component Architecture). Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mori, G., Paternò, F., Santoro, C.: Design and development of multidevice user interfaces through multiple logical descriptions. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30, 507–520 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Classification of model transformation approaches. In: OOPSLA 2003 Workshop on Generative Techniques in the Context of Model-Driven Architecture (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mens, T., Gorp, P.V.: Applying a model transformation taxonomy to graph transformation technology. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 152, 143–159 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming models with ATL. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, p. 128. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kniesel, G., Koch, H.: Program-independent composition of conditional transformations. Technical Report IAI-TR-03-1, ISSN 0944-8535, CS Dept. III, University of Bonn, Germany (2003) (updated February 2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bézivin, J., Chevrel, R., Brunelière, H., Jossic, A., Jouault, F., Piers, W.: Modelextractor: an automatic parametric model extractor. In: The international workshop on Object-Oriented Reengineering (WOOR) at the ECOOP 2006 Conference, Nantes, France (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    The Object Managemant Group: CORBA Component Model Specification, 4.0 edition. OMG Document formal/2006-04-01 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bruneton, E., Coupaye, T., Leclercq, M., Quéma, V., Stefani, J.B.: The fractal component model and its support in java: Experiences with auto-adaptive and reconfigurable systems. Softw. Pract. Exper. 36, 1257–1284 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peltz, C.: Web services orchestration and choreography. Computer 36, 46–52 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khalaf, R., Mukhi, N., Weerawarana, S.: Service-oriented composition in bpel4ws. In: WWW (Alternate Paper Tracks) (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scapin, D., Bastien, J.: Ergonomic criteria for evaluating the ergonomic quality of interactive systems. Behaviour & Information Technology 16, 220–231 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lepreux, S., Hariri, A., Rouillard, J., Tabary, D., Tarby, J., Kolski, C.: Towards Multimodal User Interfaces Composition Based on UsiXML and MBD Principles. In: Jacko, J.A. (ed.) HCI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4552, p. 134. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pinna-Déry, A.M., Fierstone, J.: Component model and programming: a first step to manage Human Computer Interaction Adaptation. In: Chittaro, L. (ed.) Mobile HCI 2003. LNCS, vol. 2795, pp. 456–460. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Servface Project: Service annotation for user interface composition (7th Framework European Programme Project) (2008), http://www.servface.org
  23. 23.
    Gabillon, Y., Calvary, G., Fiorino, H.: Composing interactive systems by planning. In: UbiMob 2008, Saint Malo, France, pp. 37–40 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Audrey Occello
    • 1
  • Cedric Joffroy
    • 1
  • Anne-Marie Dery-Pinna
    • 1
  1. 1.Polytech’Nice SophiaUniversité de Nice Sophia-AntipolisSophia Antipolis cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations