Towards a Taxonomy of Syntactic and Semantic Matching Mechanisms for Aspect-Oriented Modeling

  • Gunter Mussbacher
  • Daniele Barone
  • Daniel Amyot
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6598)


Aspect-oriented modeling (AOM) techniques have become increasingly popular over the last decade, as they enable improved modularity, separation of concerns, and reusability over conventional requirements and design modeling techniques. However, AOM notations typically employ pointcut matching mechanisms based solely on syntactic elements. In order to make aspects more generic and more robust to changes and to different modeling styles, semantic matching must be better exploited. We present a taxonomy that aims to classify matching mechanisms based on how syntactic or semantic information is used during the matching process, thus defining levels of sophistication for matching mechanisms from simple syntactic approaches to complex semantic approaches. We are particularly investigating how schema matching techniques developed in the database research community are applicable in this context. We illustrate the feasibility and potential benefits through examples based on the Aspect-oriented User Requirements Notation (AoURN).


Aspect-oriented modeling aspect composition AoURN Aspect-oriented User Requirements Notation schema matching 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amyot, D., Mussbacher, G.: Development of Telecommunications Standards and Services with the User Requirements Notation. In: Workshop on ITU System Design Languages 2008, Geneva, Switzerland (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armstrong, T.G., Moffat, A., Webber, W., Zobel, J.: Improvements That Don’t Add Up: Ad Hoc Retrieval Results Since 1998. In: 18th ACM Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 2009), pp. 601–609. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berlin, J., Motro, A.: Database Schema Matching Using Machine Learning with Feature Selection. In: Pidduck, A.B., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M.T. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 452–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chitchyan, R., Rashid, A., Rayson, P., Waters, R.: Semantics-Based Composition for Aspect-Oriented Requirements Engineering. In: Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD 2007), Vancouver, Canada, pp. 36–48 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choi, N., Song, I., Han, H.: A Survey on Ontology Mapping. SIGMOD Rec. 35(3), 34–41 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen, W., Ravikumar, P., Fienberg, S.: A Comparison of String Metrics for Matching Names and Records. In: Workshop on Data Cleaning and Object Consolidation at the Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), Washington, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cottenier, T., van den Berg, A., Elrad, T.: Joinpoint Inference from Behavioral Specification to Implementation. In: Ernst, E. (ed.) ECOOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4609, pp. 476–500. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Do, H.H., Melnik, S., Rahm, E.: Comparison of Schema Matching Evaluations. In: Chaudhri, A.B., Jeckle, M., Rahm, E., Unland, R. (eds.) NODe-WS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2593, pp. 221–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Hölzl, M., Knapp, A., Zhang, G.: Modeling the Car Crash Crisis Management System Using HiLA. In: Katz, S., Mezini, M., Kienzle, J. (eds.) Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development VII. LNCS, vol. 6210, pp. 234–271. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ITU-T – International Telecommunication Union: Recommendation Z.151, User Requirements Notation (URN) – Language definition, Geneva, Switzerland (November 2008),
  12. 12.
    jUCMNav, version 4.3.0 (2010),
  13. 13.
    Kang, K.C., Cohen, S.G., Hess, J.A., Novak, W.E., Peterson, A.S.: Feature-oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-021, SEI, Carnegie-Mellon University, USA (November 1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klein, J., Hélouët, L., Jézéquel, J.M.: Semantic-based Weaving of Scenarios. In: Conf. on Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD 2006), Bonn, Germany, pp. 27–38 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koppen, C., Stoerzer, M.: Pcdiff: Attacking the Fragile Pointcut Problem. In: First European Interactive Work. on Aspects in Software (EIWAS 2004), Berlin, Germany (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mussbacher, G., Amyot, D.: Extending the user requirements notation with aspect-oriented concepts. In: Reed, R., Bilgic, A., Gotzhein, R. (eds.) SDL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5719, pp. 115–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mussbacher, G., Amyot, D., Whittle, J.: Refactoring-Safe Modeling of Aspect-Oriented Scenarios. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 286–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oliveira, K., Breitman, K., Oliveira, T.: A Flexible Strategy-Based Model Comparison Approach: Bridging the Syntactic and Semantic Gap. Journal of Universal Computer Science 15(11), 2225–2253 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pourshahid, A., Mussbacher, G., Amyot, D., Weiss, M.: Toward an Aspect-Oriented Framework for Business Process Improvement. International Journal of Electronic Business (IJEB) 8(3), 233–259 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.: A Survey of Approaches to Automatic Schema Matching. The VLDB Journal 10(4), 334–350 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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. In: Rashid, A., Liu, Y. (eds.) Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development I. LNCS, vol. 3880, pp. 75–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Savoy, J., Dolamic, L.: How Effective is Google’s Translation Service in Search? Communications of the ACM 52(10), 139–143 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schauerhuber, A., Schwinger, W., Kapsammer, E., Retschitzegger, W., Wimmer, M., Kappel, G.: A Survey on Aspect-Oriented Modeling Approaches, Technical Report, Vienna University of Technology, Austria (October 2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J.: A Survey of Schema-based Matching Approaches. Journal on Data Semantics IV, 146–171 (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tarr, P., Ossher, H., Harrison, W., Sutton Jr., S.M.: N Degrees of Separation: Multi-dimensional Separation of Concerns. In: 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1999), Los Angeles, California, USA, pp. 107–119 (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    URN Virtual Library,

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gunter Mussbacher
    • 1
  • Daniele Barone
    • 2
  • Daniel Amyot
    • 1
  1. 1.SITEUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations