Concern-Based (de)composition of Model-Driven Software Development Processes

  • Jendrik Johannes
  • Uwe Aßmann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6395)


An MDSD process is often organised as transformation chain. This can threaten the Separation of Concerns (SoC) principle, because information is replicated in, scattered over, and tangled in different models. Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD) supports SoC to avoid such scatterings and tangling of information. Although there are integrations of MDSD and AOSD, there is no approach that uses concern separation for all artifacts (documents, models, code) involved in an MDSD process as the primary (de)composition method for the complete process. In this paper, we propose such an approach called ModelSoC. It extends the hyperspace model for multi-dimensional SoC to deal with information that is replicated in different models. We present a ModelSoC implementation based on our Reuseware framework that organises all information provided in arbitrary models during development in a concern space and composes integrated views as well as the final system from that. This is shown on the development of a demonstrator system.


Model Transformation Integration Point Composition System Concern Dimension Transformation Chain 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Paternostro, M., Merks, E.: Eclipse Modeling Framework, 2nd edn. Pearson Education, London (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ECMFA Traceability Workshop Organisers: ECMFA Traceability Workshop Series (2010),
  3. 3.
    Filman, R.E., Elrad, T., Clarke, S., Akşit, M. (eds.): Aspect-Oriented Software Development. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Workshop on Aspect-Oriented Modeling Organisers: Workshop on Aspect-Oriented Modeling (AOM) Series (2010),
  5. 5.
    Clarke, S., Baniassad, E.: Aspect-Oriented Analysis and Design: The Theme Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading (April 2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacobson, I., Ng, P.W.: AOSD with Use Cases. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kiczales, G., Hilsdale, E., Hugunin, J., Kersten, M., Palm, J., Griswold, W.G.: An Overview of AspectJ. In: Knudsen, J.L. (ed.) ECOOP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2072, p. 327. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bergmans, L., Aksit, M.: Composing Crosscutting Concerns Using Composition Filters. ACM 44(10), 51–57 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fleurey, F., Baudry, B., France, R., Ghosh, S.: A Generic Approach For Automatic Model Composition. In: Proc. of AOM @ MODELS 2007. LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ossher, H., Tarr, P.: Multi-Dimensional Separation of Concerns and The Hyperspace Approach. In: Proc. of Symp. on SWArch. and CompTechn. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Software Technology Group, Technische Universität Dresden: Reuseware Composition Framework (2010),
  12. 12.
    IBM: Concern Manip. Environment (2006),
  13. 13.
    Roussev, B., Wu, J.: Transforming Use Case Models to Class Models and OCL-Specifications. Int. Journal of Computers and Applications 29(1), 59–69 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eclipse: UML2 metamodel (2010),
  15. 15.
    Heidenreich, F., Johannes, J., Seifert, M., Wende, C.: Closing the Gap between Modelling and Java. In: van den Brand, M., Gašević, D., Gray, J. (eds.) SLE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5969, pp. 374–383. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kiczales, G., Lamping, J., Menhdhekar, A., Maeda, C., Lopes, C., Loingtier, J.M., Irwin, J.: Aspect-Oriented Programming. In: Aksit, M., Matsuoka, S. (eds.) ECOOP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1241, pp. 220–242. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aßmann, U.: Invasive Software Composition. Springer, Heidelberg (April 2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Henriksson, J.: A Lightweight Framework for Universal Fragment Composition—with an application in the Semantic Web. PhD thesis, TU Dresden (January 2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heidenreich, F., Henriksson, J., Johannes, J., Zschaler, S.: On Language-Independent Model Modularisation. In: Katz, S., Ossher, H., France, R., Jézéquel, J.-M. (eds.) TAOSD VI. LNCS, vol. 5560, pp. 39–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johannes, J., Gaul, K.: Towards a Generic Layout Composition Framework for Domain Specific Models. In: Proc. of DSM 2009 at OOPSLA (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johannes, J., Samlaus, R., Seifert, M.: Round-trip Support for Invasive Software Composition Systems. In: Bergel, A., Fabry, J. (eds.) SC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5634, pp. 90–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Modelplex: D1.1.a (v3): Case Study Scenario Definitions (2008),
  23. 23.
    Steimann, F.: On the representation of roles in object-oriented and conceptual modelling. Data & Knowledge Engineering 35(1), 83–106 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schauerhuber, A., Retschitzegger, W., Kappel, G., Kapsammer, E., Wimmer, M., Schwinger, W.: A Survey on AOM Approaches. Technical report, JKU Linz (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kienzle, J., Al Abed, W., Klein, J.: Aspect-Oriented Multi-View Modeling. In: Proc. of AOSD 2009, pp. 87–98. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morin, B., Klein, J., Barais, O., Jézéquel, J.M.: A Generic Weaver for Supporting Product Lines. In: Proc. of EA 2008, pp. 11–18. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hovsepyan, A., Scandariato, R., Van Baelen, S., Berbers, Y., Joosen, W.: From Aspect-Oriented Models to Aspect-Oriented Code? In: AOSD 2010. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Object Management Group: Meta Object Facility 2.0 Query/View/Transformation, QVT (2008),
  29. 29.
    Eclipse: ATLAS Transformation Language (2010),
  30. 30.
    Kolovos, D.S.: An Extensible Platform for Specification of Integrated Languages for Model Management. PhD thesis, University of York (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fischer, T., Niere, J., Torunski, L., Zündorf, A.: Story Diagrams: A New Graph Rewrite Language Based on the UML and Java. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) TAGT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1764, pp. 296–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vanhooff, B., Ayed, D., Baelen, S.V., Joosen, W., Berbers, Y.: UniTI: A Unified Transformation Infrastructure. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kleppe, A.: MCC: A Model Transformation Environment. In: Rensink, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4066, pp. 173–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Heidenreich, F., Kopcsek, J., Aßmann, U.: Safe Composition of Transformations. In: Tratt, L., Gogolla, M. (eds.) ICMT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6142, pp. 108–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bézivin, J., Jouault, F., Valduriez, P.: On the Need for Megamodels. In: Proc. of Best Practices for MDSD Workshop (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jendrik Johannes
    • 1
  • Uwe Aßmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Software- und MultimediatechnikTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations