Sustainable Constraint Writing and a Symbolic Viewpoint of Modeling Languages

(Extended Abstract)
  • Dirk Draheim
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8644)


Constraints form an important part of models to capture experts’ domain knowledge. Sustainable constraint writing is about making constraints robust in model evolution scenarios, i.e., it is about saving the knowledge expressed by data constraints against model updates. As an important example for sustainable constraint writing, we walk through the semantics of power type constructs. Power types are used to model sets of sets. Modeling sets of sets of objects is important, because it arises naturally in many expert domains. We will see that the intuitively intended meaning of power type constructs is not merely about structuring information but is about establishing type-generic constraints. We give a precise semantics for power types based on sustainable constraints. In general, sustainable constraints need to contain meta data parts, i.e., they are reflective constraints. In accordance to the notion of sustainable constraint writing, we introduce a symbolic viewpoint on model manipulation that complements current mainstream viewpoints. The symbolic viewpoint is about denying a model/data level divide. We discuss sustainable constraint writing with respect to further issues in concrete technologies and tools for transparent database access layers (IMIS), meta modeling (AMMI) and generative programming (GENOUPE).


Modeling Language Intended Meaning Object Management Group Object Constraint asSet Size 
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.
    Atkinson, C., Draheim, D.: Cloud Aided-Software Engineering – Evolving Viable Software Systems through a Web of Views. In: Mahmood, Z., Saeed, S. (eds.) Software Engineering Frameworks for Cloud Computing Paradigm. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, C., Bostan, P., Draheim, D.: A Unified Conceptual Framework for Service-Oriented Computing - Aligning Models of Architecture and Utilization. In: Hameurlain, A., Küng, J., Wagner, R. (eds.) Transactions on Large-Scale Data- and Knowledge-Centered Systems, vol. 7. Springer (December 2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bordbar, B., Draheim, D., Horn, M., Schulz, I., Weber, G.: Integrated Model-Based Software Development, Data Access, and Data Migration. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 382–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brentano, F.: Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Duncker & Humblot (1874)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brentano, F.: Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint. Routledge (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Draheim, D., Horn, M., Schulz, I.: The Schema Evolution and Data Migration Framework of the Environmental Mass Database IMIS. In: Proceedings of SSDBM 2004 – 16th International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management. IEEE Press (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Himsl, M., Jabornig, D., Leithner, W., Regner, P., Wiesinger, T., Küng, J., Draheim, D.: An Iterative Process for Adaptive Meta- and Instance Modeling. In: Wagner, R., Revell, N., Pernul, G. (eds.) DEXA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4653, pp. 519–528. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Draheim, D., Himsl, M., Jabornig, D., Leithner, W., Regner, P., Wiesinger, T.: Intuitive Visualization-Oriented Metamodeling. In: Bhowmick, S.S., Küng, J., Wagner, R. (eds.) DEXA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5690, pp. 727–734. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Draheim, D., Natschläger, C.: A Context-Oriented Synchronization Approach. In: Electronic Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop in Personalized Access, Profile Management, and Context Awarness: Databases (PersDB 2008) in Conjunction with the 34th VLDB Confercence, pp. 20–27 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Draheim, D.: Business Process Technology – A Unified View on Business Processes, Workflows and Enterprise Applications. Springer (September 2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Draheim, D.: Smart Business Process Management. In: Fischer, L. (ed.) Social Software - 2011 BPM and Workflow Handbook, Digital Edition. Future Strategies, Workflow Management Coalition (February 2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Draheim, D., Lutteroth, C., Weber, G.: Factory: Statically Type-Safe Integration of Genericity and Reflection. In: Proceedings of the ACIS 2003 – the 4th Intl. Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking, and Parallel/Distributed Computing (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Draheim, D., Weber, G.: Form-Oriented Analysis – A New Methodology to Model Form-Based Applications. Springer (October 2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Draheim, D., Weber, G.: Modelling Form-Based Interfaces with Bipartite State Machines. Journal Interacting with Computers 17(2), 207–228 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Draheim, D., Lutteroth, C., Weber, G.: Generative Programming for C#. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 40(8) (August 2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Draheim, D., Lutteroth, C., Weber, G.: A Type System for Reflective Program Generators. In: Glück, R., Lowry, M. (eds.) GPCE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3676, pp. 327–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Draheim, D., Himsl, M., Jabornig, D., Küng, J., Leithner, W., Regner, P., Wiesinger, T.: Concept and Pragmatics of an Intuitive Visualization-Oriented Metamodeling Tool. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 21(4) (August 2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lutteroth, C., Draheim, D., Weber, G.: A Type System for Reflective Program Generators. Science of Computer Programming 76(5) (May 2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group. Object Constraint Language, version 2.3.1 OMG (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Object Management Group. OMG Unified Modeling Language – Infrastructure, version 2.4.1. OMG (August 2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group. OMG Unified Modeling Language – Superstructure, version 2.4.1. OMG (August 2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson, R., Woolf, B.: Type Object. In: Pattern Languages of Program Design, vol. 3. Addison-Wesley (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Draheim
    • 1
  1. 1.University of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations