A framework for evolution of modelling languages

Abstract

a b s t r a c tIn model-driven engineering, evolution is inevitable over the course of the complete life cycle of complex software-intensive systems and more importantly of entire product families. Not only instance models, but also entire modelling languages are subject to change. This is in particular true for domain-specific languages, whose language constructs are tightly coupled to an application domain. The most popular approach to evolution in the modelling domain is a manual process, with tedious and error-prone migration of artefacts such as instance models as a result. This paper provides a taxonomy for evolution of modelling languages and discusses the different evolution scenarios for various kinds of modelling artefacts, such as instance models, metamodels, and transformation models. Subsequently, the consequences of evolution and the required remedial actions are decomposed into primitive scenarios such that all possible evolutions can be covered exhaustively. These primitives are then used in a high-level framework for the evolution of modelling languages. We suggest that our structured approach enables the design of (semi-)automatic modelling language evolution solutions.

Requirements-Driven Testing of Domain-Specific Core Language Models Using Scenarios

“…In the following, such a core language model is referred to as the Metamodel Under Test (MUT). The MUT is subject to continued change to maintain the high coupling between the DSML and the corresponding application domain (see, e.g., [4]). As a result, models can be instances of the changed MUT (MUT' in Fig.…”

“…However, in order to realize the benefits of DSMLs, we must ensure that the DSML is correctly implemented and behaves as specified. Moreover, because DSMLs evolve over time (see, e.g., [4]), we must be able to efficiently test the evolving language artifacts such as the core language model.…”

“…Because the core language model is a central DSML artifact and because many other artifacts depend on the core language model (such as model-transformation definitions or model constraints; see, e.g., [4], [6]) an undetected error in the core language model may have severe effects on all corresponding software artifacts. As many of such dependent artifacts are created late in the DSML development process (e.g., during platform integration, see, e.g., [5]), the costescalation factor of such defects can be considered significant.…”

Towards Co-evolution in Model-Driven Development Via Bidirectional Higher-Order Transformation

“…In most cases, the evolution of (meta)models and model transformations is a manual process (Meyers and Vangheluwe, 2011). Individually maintain and manually evolve MDD specifications is a tedious and error-prone task (Stevens, 2010;Di Ruscio et al, 2011).…”

Negotiated Grammar Evolution.

“…Meyers and Vangheluwe [MV11] show four scenarios of coevolution: "model evolution" when a model is changed without any metamodel changes, "domain evolution" when a source metamodel changes, "image evolution" when the change concerns the target metamodel and "transformation evolution" when the transformation script changes, leading to necessary changes in the target metamodel. In fact, this definition generalises views found in coevolution research about data, code, grammars, schemata, databases and scripts [HTJC94, CH06, BCPV07, VV08].…”