Abstracting Modelling Languages: A Reutilization Approach

  • Juan de Lara
  • Esther Guerra
  • Jesús Sánchez-Cuadrado
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7328)


Model-Driven Engineering automates the development of information systems. This approach is based on the use of Domain-Specific Modelling Languages (DSMLs) for the description of the relevant aspects of the systems to be built. The increasing complexity of the target systems has raised the need for abstraction techniques able to produce simpler versions of the models, but retaining certain properties of interest. However, developing such abstractions for each DSML from scratch is a time and resource consuming activity.

Our solution to this situation is a number of techniques to build reusable abstractions that are defined once and can be reused over families of modelling languages sharing certain requirements. As a proof of concept, we present a catalogue of reusable abstractions, together with an implementation in the MetaDepth multi-level meta-modelling tool.


Model-Driven Engineering Domain-Specific Modelling Languages Abstraction Genericity 


  1. 1.
    Murata, T.: Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE 77(4), 541–580 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Polyvyanyy, A., Smirnov, S., Weske, M.: The Triconnected Abstraction of Process Models. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 229–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smirnov, S., Reijers, H.A., Weske, M.: A Semantic Approach for Business Process Model Abstraction. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds.) CAiSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6741, pp. 497–511. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wynn, M.T., Verbeek, H.M.W., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D.: Reduction rules for YAWL workflows with cancellation regions and or-joins. Inf. & Softw. Techn. 51(6), 1010–1020 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Lara, J., Guerra, E.: From types to type requirements: Genericity for model-driven engineering. In: SoSyM (2011) (in press)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mosterman, P.J., Vangheluwe, H.: Computer automated multi-paradigm modeling: An introduction. Simulation 80(9), 433–450 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kühne, T.: Matters of (meta-)modeling. SoSyM 5(4), 369–385 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: Granularity in Conceptual Modelling: Application to Metamodels. In: Parsons, J., Saeki, M., Shoval, P., Woo, C., Wand, Y. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 219–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: Random Thoughts on Multi-level Conceptual Modelling. In: Kaschek, R., Delcambre, L. (eds.) The Evolution of Conceptual Modeling. LNCS, vol. 6520, pp. 93–116. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lano, K., Kolahdouz, S.: Slicing techniques for UML models. Journal of Object Technology 10, 11:1–11:49 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blouin, A., Combemale, B., Baudry, B., Beaudoux, O.: Modeling Model Slicers. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6981, pp. 62–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moha, N., Mahé, V., Barais, O., Jézéquel, J.M.: Generic Model Refactorings. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 628–643. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weber, B., Rinderle, S., Reichert, M.: Change Patterns and Change Support Features in Process-Aware Information Systems. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 574–588. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hobbs, J.R.: Granularity. In: IJCAI 1985, pp. 432–435. M. Kaufmann (1985)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ghidini, C., Giunchiglia, F.: A semantics for abstraction. In: ECAI, pp. 343–347. IOS Press (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giunchiglia, F., Walsh, T.: A theory of abstraction. Artif. Intell. 57(2-3), 323–389 (1992)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keet, C.M.: Enhancing Comprehension of Ontologies and Conceptual Models Through Abstractions. In: Basili, R., Pazienza, M.T. (eds.) AI*IA 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4733, pp. 813–821. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mani, I.: A theory of granularity and its application to problems of polysemy and underspecification of meaning. In: KR 1998, pp. 245–255. M. Kaufmann (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaschek, R.: A little theory of abstraction. In: Modellierung. LNI, vol. 45, pp. 75–92. GI (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frisch, M., Dachselt, R., Brückmann, T.: Towards seamless semantic zooming techniques for UML diagrams. In: SOFTVIS, pp. 207–208. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Köth, O., Minas, M.: Structure, Abstraction, and Direct Manipulation in Diagram Editors. In: Hegarty, M., Meyer, B., Narayanan, N.H. (eds.) Diagrams 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2317, pp. 290–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan de Lara
    • 1
  • Esther Guerra
    • 1
  • Jesús Sánchez-Cuadrado
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad Autónoma de MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations