Weaving Executability into Object-Oriented Meta-languages

  • Pierre-Alain Muller
  • Franck Fleurey
  • Jean-Marc Jézéquel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3713)


Nowadays, object-oriented meta-languages such as MOF (Meta-Object Facility) are increasingly used to specify domain-specific languages in the model-driven engineering community. However, these meta-languages focus on structural specifications and have no built-in support for specifications of operational semantics. In this paper we explore the idea of using aspect-oriented modeling to add precise action specifications with static type checking and genericity at the meta level, and examine related issues and possible solutions. We believe that such a combination would bring significant benefits to the community, such as the specification, simulation and testing of operational semantics of metamodels. We present requirements for such statically-typed meta-languages and rationales for the aforementioned benefits.


Operational Semantic Object Constraint Language Object Management Group Action Semantic Concrete Syntax 
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.
    Abadi, M., Cardelli, L.: A theory of objects. Springer, New York (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borras, P., Clement, D., Despeyroux, T., Incerpi, J., Kahn, G., Lang, B., Pascual, V.: Centaur: the system. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT/SIGPLAN software engineering symposium on practical software development environments, vol. 13(5), pp. 14–24Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Budinsky, F., Steinberg, D., Merks, E., Ellersick, R., Grose, T.: Eclipse Modeling Framework. Addison Wesley Professional, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clark, T., Evans, A., Sammut, P., Willans, J.: Applied Metamodelling: A Foundation for Language Driven Development (2004),
  5. 5.
    Clarke, S.: Extending standard UML with model composition semantics. Science of Computer Programming 44(1), 71–100Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Engstrom, E., Krueger, J.: Building and rapidly evolving domain-specific tools with DOME. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Aided Control System Design (CACSD 2000), pp. 83–88 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greenfield, J., Short, K., Cook, S., Kent, S., Crupi, J.: Software Factories: Assembling Applications with Patterns, Models, Frameworks, and Tools. Wiley, Chichester (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mellor, S., Tockey, S., Arthaud, R., Leblanc, P.: Action Language for UML: Proposal for a Precise Execution Semantics. In: Bézivin, J., Muller, P.-A. (eds.) UML 1998. LNCS, vol. 1618, pp. 307–318. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muller, P.-A., Dumoulin, C., Fondement, F., Hassenforder, M.: The TopModL Initiative. In: UML Satellite Activities, pp. 242–245. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Muller, P.-A., Studer, P., Fondement, F., Bezivin, J.: Platform independent Web Application Modeling and Development with Netsilon. Accepted for publication in Journal on Software and Systems Modelling (SoSym),
  11. 11.
    OMG. Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification 1.4, Object Management Group (2002),
  12. 12.
    OMG. MOF 2.0 Core Final Adopted Specification, Object Management Group (2004),
  13. 13.
    OMG. Revised submission for MOF 2.0 Query/View/Transformation, Object Management Group (QVT-Merge Group) (2005),
  14. 14.
    OMG. UML 2.0 Object Constraint Language (OCL) Final Adopted specification, Object Management Group (2003),
  15. 15.
    Scharli, N., Ducasse, S., Nierstrasz, O., Black, A.: Traits: Composable units of behavior. In: Cardelli, L. (ed.) ECOOP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2743, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smolander, K., Lyytinen, K., Tahvanainen, V.-P., Marttiin, P.: MetaEdit: a flexible graphical environment for methodology modelling. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on Advanced information systems engineeringGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Straw, G., Georg, G., Song, E., Ghosh, S., France, R.B., Bieman, J.M.: Model Composition Directives. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference Unified Modelling Language: Modelling Languages and Applications, pp. 84–97Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thomas, D., Fowler, C., Hunt, A.: Programming Ruby - The Pragmatic Programmer’s Guide, 2nd edn (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vojtisek, D., Jézéquel, J.-M.: MTL and Umlaut NG: Engine and Framework for Model Transformation. ERCIM News 58Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wirth, N.: Algorithms + data structures = programs. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1976)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ziadi, T., Hélouët, L., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Revisiting statechart synthesis with an algebraic approach. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2004 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre-Alain Muller
    • 1
  • Franck Fleurey
    • 1
  • Jean-Marc Jézéquel
    • 1
  1. 1.IRISA / INRIA RennesCampus Universitaire de BeaulieuRENNES CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations