A Graph Transformation-Based Semantics for Deep Metamodelling

  • Alessandro Rossini
  • Juan de Lara
  • Esther Guerra
  • Adrian Rutle
  • Yngve Lamo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7233)


Metamodelling is one of the pillars of model-driven engineering, used for language engineering and domain modelling. Even though metamodelling is traditionally based on a two-level approach, several researchers have pointed out limitations of this solution and proposed an alternative deep (also called multi-level) approach to obtain simpler system descriptions. However, deep metamodelling currently lacks a formalisation that can be used to explain fundamental concepts such as deep characterisation through potency and double linguistic/ontological typing. This paper provides different semantics for such fundamental concepts based on graph transformation and the Diagram Predicate Framework.


Transformation Rule Eclipse Modeling Framework Component Instance Graph Homomorphism Typing Morphism 
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.
    Aschauer, T., Dauenhauer, G., Pree, W.: Multi-level modeling for industrial automation systems. In: EUROMICRO 2009, pp. 490–496. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asikainen, T., Männistö, T.: Nivel: A metamodelling language with a formal semantics. Software and Systems Modeling 8(4), 521–549 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkinson, C., Gutheil, M., Kennel, B.: A flexible infrastructure for multilevel language engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35(6), 742–755 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Rearchitecting the UML infrastructure. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation 12(4), 290–321 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Reducing accidental complexity in domain models. Software and Systems Modeling 7(3), 345–359 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barr, M., Wells, C.: Category Theory for Computing Science, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark, T., Sammut, P., Willans, J.: Applied Metamodelling: A Foundation for Language Driven Development, 2nd edn., Ceteva (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diskin, Z.: Mathematics of Generic Specifications for Model Management I and II. In: Encyclopedia of Database Technologies and Applications, pp. 351–366. Information Science Reference (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diskin, Z., Kadish, B., Piessens, F., Johnson, M.: Universal Arrow Foundations for Visual Modeling. In: Anderson, M., Cheng, P., Haarslev, V. (eds.) Diagrams 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1889, pp. 345–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diskin, Z., Wolter, U.: A diagrammatic logic for object-oriented visual modeling. In: Proc. of the 2nd Workshop on Applied and Computational Category Theory (ACCAT 2007). ENTCS, vol. 203(6), pp. 19–41. Elsevier (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. Springer (March 2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gitzel, R., Ott, I., Schader, M.: Ontological extension to the MOF metamodel as a basis for code generation. Computer Journal 50(1), 93–115 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A powertype-based metamodelling framework. Software and Systems Modeling 5(1), 72–90 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gutheil, M., Kennel, B., Atkinson, C.: A Systematic Approach to Connectors in a Multi-level Modeling Environment. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 843–857. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kühne, T., Schreiber, D.: Can programming be liberated from the two-level style? Multi-level programming with DeepJava. In: OOPSLA 2007: 22nd Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications, pp. 229–244. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Lara, J., Guerra, E.: Deep Meta-modelling with MetaDepth. In: Vitek, J. (ed.) TOOLS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6141, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rossini, A.: Diagram Predicate Framework Meets Model Versioning and Deep Metamodelling. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Bergen, Norway (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rossini, A., Rutle, A., Lamo, Y., Wolter, U.: A formalisation of the copy-modify-merge approach to version control in MDE. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 79(7), 636–658 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rutle, A.: Diagram Predicate Framework: A Formal Approach to MDE. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Bergen, Norway (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rutle, A., Rossini, A., Lamo, Y., Wolter, U.: A formal approach to the specification and transformation of constraints in MDE. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 81(4), 422–457 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Paternostro, M., Merks, E.: EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework 2.0., 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Rossini
    • 1
  • Juan de Lara
    • 2
  • Esther Guerra
    • 2
  • Adrian Rutle
    • 3
  • Yngve Lamo
    • 3
  1. 1.University of BergenNorway
  2. 2.Universidad Autónoma de MadridSpain
  3. 3.Bergen University CollegeNorway

Personalised recommendations