A \(\mathbb{K}\)-Based Formal Framework for Domain-Specific Modelling Languages

  • Vlad Rusu
  • Dorel Lucanu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7421)


We propose a formal approach for the definition of domain-specific modelling languages (dsmls). The approach uses basic Model-Driven Engineering artifacts for defining a dsml’s syntax (using metamodels) and its operational semantics (using model transformations). We give formal meanings to these artifacts by mapping them to the \(\mathbb K\) semantic framework. Since the \(\mathbb K\) definitions are executable, one obtains an execution engine for dsmls and gains acces to \(\mathbb K\)’s formal analysis tools. We illustrate the approach on xspem, a language for describing the execution of tasks constrained by time, precedence, and resources.


Model Check Modelling Language Model Transformation Operational Semantic Object Constraint Language 
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.
    The Objet Management Group. The object constraint language, version 2.2. Technical report (2010),
  2. 2.
    Klint, P., van der Storm, T., Vinju, J.J.: Rascal: A domain specific language for source code analysis and manipulation. In: SCAM, pp. 168–177. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roşu, G., Şerbănut̨ă, T.-F.: An overview of the K semantic framework. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 79(6), 397–434 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bendraou, R., Combemale, B., Crégut, X., Gervais, M.-P.: Definition of an executable Spem 2.0. In: APSEC, pp. 390–397. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Software & systems process engineering metamodel specification (spem),
  6. 6.
    Roşu, G., Ellison, C., Schulte, W.: Matching Logic: An Alternative to Hoare/Floyd Logic. In: Johnson, M., Pavlovic, D. (eds.) AMAST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6486, pp. 142–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Muller, P.-A., Fleurey, F., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Weaving Executability into Object-Oriented Meta-Languages. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 264–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I.: ATL: A model transformation tool. Sci. Comput. Program. 72(1-2), 31–39 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.L.: All About Maude - A High-Performance Logical Framework. LNCS, vol. 4350. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Troya, J., Vallecillo, A.: Towards a Rewriting Logic Semantics for ATL. In: Tratt, L., Gogolla, M. (eds.) ICMT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6142, pp. 230–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boronat, A., Heckel, R., Meseguer, J.: Rewriting Logic Semantics and Verification of Model Transformations. In: Chechik, M., Wirsing, M. (eds.) FASE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5503, pp. 18–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rivera, J.E., Durán, F., Vallecillo, A.: Formal specification and analysis of domain specific languages using Maude. Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 85(11-12), 778–792 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rusu, V.: Embedding domain-specific modelling languages into Maude specifications. Software and Systems Modeling (2012), Online first at
  14. 14.
    Taentzer, G.: AGG: A Graph Transformation Environment for Modeling and Validation of Software. In: Pfaltz, J.L., Nagl, M., Böhlen, B. (eds.) AGTIVE 2003. LNCS, vol. 3062, pp. 446–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Csertán, G., Huszerl, G., Majzik, I., Pap, Z., Pataricza, A., Varró, D.: VIATRA - visual automated transformations for formal verification and validation of UML models. In: ASE, pp. 267–270. IEEE Computer Society (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Combemale, B., Crégut, X., Garoche, P.-L., Thirioux, X.: Essay on Semantics Definition in MDE. An Instrumented Approach for Model Verification. Journal of Software 4(9), 943–958 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vlad Rusu
    • 1
  • Dorel Lucanu
    • 2
  1. 1.Inria LilleFrance
  2. 2.University of IasiRomania

Personalised recommendations