ReuseMe - Towards Aspect-Driven Reuse in Modelling Method Development

  • Alexander Bergmayr
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6627)


Today, the construction of individual modelling methods is a commonly accepted practice in different application domains. Method engineers are, however, faced with complexity and high effort involved, especially during modelling language development, considered as one major task when developing methods. To alleviate this, one obvious step is to promote reuse, thereby increasing productivity and quality similar to what can be expected from reuse in software and information systems engineering. Although considerable progress in language modularization and composition is observable, the reuse principle is still rarely adopted in practice. Therefore, in this work, a research roadmap for ReuseMe (Reuse Methods), a novel aspect-oriented reuse approach is proposed. By involving artefacts generated during a method’s conceptualization down to its implementation and putting forth fundamental ingredients for a comprehensive method reuse process on top of an Open Model Repository, method reuse becomes leveraged. This paves the way for establishing a library, populated with potential reusable aspects that modularize method artefacts based on separating language concerns.


Modelling Method Development Reuse Aspect-orientation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Verhoef, T.F.: Meta-CASE: Is the game worth the candle? Inf. Syst. J. 6(1), 41–68 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karagiannis, D., Kühn, H.: Metamodelling Platforms. In: Bauknecht, K., Tjoa, A.M., Quirchmayr, G. (eds.) EC-Web 2002. LNCS, vol. 2455, p. 182. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mernik, M., Heering, J., Sloane, A.M.: When and how to develop domain-specific languages. ACM Comput. Surv. 37(4), 316–344 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Karsai, G., Krahn, H., Pinkernell, C., Rumpe, B., Schindler, M., Völkel, S.: Design Guidelines for Domain Specific Languages. In: Proceedings of the 9th OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling (DSM 2009) Helsinki School of Economics. TR no B-108 (October 2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology 38(4), 275–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reddy, Y.R., Ghosh, S., France, R.B., Straw, G., Bieman, J.M., McEachen, N., Song, E., Georg, G.: Directives for Composing Aspect-Oriented Design Class Models. Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development I 3880, 75–105 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abazi, F., Bergmayr, A.: Knowledge-Based Process Modelling for Nuclear Inspection. In: Karagiannis, D., Jin, Z. (eds.) KSEM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5914, pp. 406–417. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spinellis, D.: Notable design patterns for domain-specific languages. J. Syst. Softw. 56, 91–99 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guizzardi, G.: On Ontology, ontologies, Conceptualizations, Modeling Languages, and (Meta)Models. In: Proceeding of the 2007 Conference on Databases and Information Systems IV, pp. 18–39. IOS Press, The Netherlands (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tairas, R., Mernik, M., Gray, J.: Using Ontologies in the Domain Analysis of Domain-Specific Languages. In: Chaudron, M.R. (ed.) Models in Software Engineering, pp. 332–342. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J.R., Benjamins, V.R.: What Are Ontologies, and Why Do We Need Them? IEEE Intelligent Systems 14(1), 20–26 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwab, M., Karagiannis, D., Bergmayr, A.: i* on ADOxx: A Case Study. In: Castro, J., Franch, X., Mylopoulos, J., Yu, E. (eds.) Fourth International i* Workshop (iStar 2010) at CAiSE 2010, pp. 92–97 (June 2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bork, D., Sinz, E.J.: Design of a SOM Business Process Modelling Tool based on the ADOxx Meta-modelling Platform. In: de Lara, J., Varro, D., Margaria, T., Padberg, J., Taentzer, G. (eds.) 4th International Workshop on Graph Based Tools (GraBaTs 2010), Enschede, The Netherlands, pp. 89–101 (September, 2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Concepts for Comparing Modeling Tool Architectures. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 398–413. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    France, R.B., Ray, I., Georg, G., Ghosh, S.: Aspect-oriented approach to early design modelling. IEE Proceedings - Software 151(4), 173–186 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kramer, J.: Is abstraction the key to computing? Commun. ACM 50(4), 36–42 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sen, S., Moha, N., Baudry, B., Jézéquel, J.M.: Meta-model Pruning. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 32–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cottenier, T., Berg, A.V., Elrad, T.: The Motorola WEAVR: Model Weaving in a Large Industrial Context. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on AspectOriented Software Development, Industry Track (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jacobson, I., Ng, P.W.: Aspect-Oriented Software Development with Use Cases (Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series). Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harrison, W., Ossher, H., Tarr, P.: Asymmetrically vs. Symmetrically Organized Paradigms for Software Composition. Research Report RC22685 (W0212-147), IBM (December 2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., Yu, E.: From object-oriented to goal-oriented requirements analysis. Commun. ACM 42(1), 31–37 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Junginger, S., Kühn, H., Strobl, R., Karagiannis, D.: Ein Geschäftsprozessmanagement-Werkzeug der nächsten Generation - ADONIS: Konzeption und Anwendungen. Wirtschaftsinformatik 42(5), 392–401 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sprinkle, J., Rumpe, B., Vangheluwe, H., Karsai, G.: Metamodelling: State of the Art, and Research Challenges. In: Model-Based Engineering of Embedded Real-Time Systems, pp. 59–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyté, J.: Situational Method Engineering: State-of-the-Art Review. Journal of Universal Computer Science 16(3), 424–478 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schauerhuber, A., Wimmer, M., Schwinger, W., Kapsammer, E., Retschitzegger, W.: Aspect-Oriented Modeling of Ubiquitous Web Applications: The aspectWebML Approach. In: ECBS 2007: Proceedings of the 14th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, pp. 569–576. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ghosh, S. (ed.): Second Workshop on Transforming and Weaving Ontologies in Model Driven Engineering (TWOMDE 2009), vol. 6002. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kappel, G., Kapsammer, E., Kargl, H., Kramler, G., Reiter, T., Retschitzegger, W., Schwinger, W., Wimmer, M.: Lifting Metamodels to Ontologies: A Step to the Semantic Integration of Modeling Languages. Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems 4199, 528–542 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lucrédio, D., de M. Fortes, R.P., Whittle, J.: MOOGLE: A Model Search Engine. In: Busch, C., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 296–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jasper, R., Uschold, M.: A Framework for Understanding and Classifying Ontology Applications. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI 1999 Workshop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods KRR5, Stockholm, Sweden, August 2 (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    White, J., Hill, J.H., Gray, J., Tambe, S., Gokhale, A.S., Schmidt, D.C.: Improving Domain-Specific Language Reuse with Software Product Line Techniques. IEEE Softw. 26, 47–53 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Emerson, M., Sztipanovits, J.: Techniques for metamodel composition. In: The 6th OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling, OOPSLA 2006, pp. 123–139. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Di Ruscio, D., Malavolta, I., Muccini, H., Pelliccione, P., Pierantonio, A.: Developing next generation ADLs through MDE techniques. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2010, vol. 1, pp. 85–94. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Blanc, X., Ramalho, F., Robin, J.: Metamodel Reuse with MOF. Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems 3713, 661–675 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weisemöller, I., Schürr, A.: Formal Definition of MOF 2.0 Metamodel Components and Composition. In: Busch, C., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 386–400. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krahn, H., Rumpe, B., Völkel, S.: MontiCore: Modular Development of Textual Domain Specific Languages. In: TOOLS (46), pp. 297–315 (2008)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Reina Quintero, A.M., Torres Valderrama, J.: Using Aspect-orientation Techniques to Improve Reuse of Metamodels. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 163(2), 29–43 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Walter, T., Silva Parreiras, F., Staab, S., Ebert, J.: Joint Language and Domain Engineering. In: Kühne, T., Selic, B., Gervais, M.-P., Terrier, F. (eds.) ECMFA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6138, Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Laarman, A., Kurtev, I.: Ontological Metamodeling with Explicit Instantiation. In: van den Brand, M., Gašević, D., Gray, J. (eds.) SLE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5969, pp. 174–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mili, A., Mili, R., Mittermeir, R.T.: A survey of software reuse libraries. Ann. Softw. Eng. 5, 349–414 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Woitsch, R., Karagiannis, D., Plexousakis, D., Hinkelmann, K.: Business and IT alignment: the IT-Socket. E & I Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik 126, 308–321 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Frakes, W., Terry, C.: Software reuse: metrics and models. ACM Comput. Surv. 28(2), 415–435 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Whittle, J., Jayaraman, P.K., Elkhodary, A.M., Moreira, A., Araújo, J.a.: MATA: A Unified Approach for Composing UML Aspect Models Based on Graph Transformation. T. Aspect-Oriented Software Development VI 6, 191–237 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mens, T., Taentzer, G., Runge, O.: Detecting Structural Refactoring Conflicts Using Critical Pair Analysis. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 127(3), 113–128 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Bergmayr
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations