Aocl : A Pure-Java Constraint and Transformation Language for MDE

Batory, Don; Altoyan, Najd

doi:10.5220/0008942803190327

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, EMF is tightly coupled with Eclipse 19 and has complex interdependencies. These issues make the EMF hard to use for users without model-driven software engineering expertise or set up the EMF in custom software solutions [48]. This shortcoming is a major drawback in the PSE application context.…”

Section: Traceable Multi-view Model Transformation Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

Traceable Multi-view Model Integration: A Transformation Pipeline for Agile Production Systems Engineering

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. Agile Production Systems Engineering (PSE) is characterised by parallel and iterative engineering of several disciplines. This multi-view engineering requires capabilities for tracing changes to support configuration management of PSE assets. Yet, traditional model transformation approaches in PSE do not preserve local views and hierarchies on concepts of PSE assets, such as plans and configurations. Thus, tracing multi-view changes to PSE assets is challenging. Method. Following the Design Science approach, we (i) elicit requirements for tracing multi-view changes to PSE assets from a domain analysis in automotive manufacturing; (ii) introduce and evaluate the Traceable Multi-view Model Transformation (TMvMT) process; and (iii) propose the TMvMT pipeline architecture to provide traceable model integration capabilities for agile PSE. Results. In a feasibility study on robot cell models, we evaluate the TMvMT process and architecture regarding the requirements for traceability compared to traditional approaches. Conclusion. The proposed TMvMT approach provides traceability of changes in multi-view modelling as a basis through the separation of modelling transformation steps and provision of clear input and output artefacts to achieve traceable configuration management and validation of system designs for production system assets in agile PSE.

show abstract

Section: Traceable Multi-view Model Transformation Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

Traceable Multi-view Model Integration: A Transformation Pipeline for Agile Production Systems Engineering

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A more specific distinction of helper contents is not done due to them only containing OCL expressions. The rules in the Fami-lies2Persons example only contain InPatterns (lines 31-32, [40][41] and OutPatterns (lines [33][34][35][36][42][43][44][45].…”

Section: Atlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As previously discussed, the goal of this research question is to investigate the claim that writing queries for models was improved with the introduction of model transformation languages such as ATL and to check if this is still the case when utilizing new languages features in general purpose languages today. This discussion of Java vs OCL has already been raised approaches to replace OCL with Java [35]. The data basis for this analysis is formed by all helpers and their corresponding Java translations in form of methods within the 12 transformation modules subject in this study.…”

Section: Rq4: How Does the Size Of Query Aspects Of Transformations Written In Java Se5 And Se14 Compare To Each Other And Atl?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contrasting dedicated model transformation languages versus general purpose languages: a historical perspective on ATL versus Java based on complexity and size

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model transformations are among the key concepts of model-driven engineering (MDE), and dedicated model transformation languages (MTLs) emerged with the popularity of the MDE pssaradigm about 15 to 20 years ago. MTLs claim to increase the ease of development of model transformations by abstracting from recurring transformation aspects and hiding complex semantics behind a simple and intuitive syntax. Nonetheless, MTLs are rarely adopted in practice, there is still no empirical evidence for the claim of easier development, and the argument of abstraction deserves a fresh look in the light of modern general purpose languages (GPLs) which have undergone a significant evolution in the last two decades. In this paper, we report about a study in which we compare the complexity and size of model transformations written in three different languages, namely (i) the Atlas Transformation Language (ATL), (ii) Java SE5 (2004–2009), and (iii) Java SE14 (2020); the Java transformations are derived from an ATL specification using a translation schema we developed for our study. In a nutshell, we found that some of the new features in Java SE14 compared to Java SE5 help to significantly reduce the complexity of transformations written in Java by as much as 45%. At the same time, however, the relative amount of complexity that stems from aspects that ATL can hide from the developer, which is about 40% of the total complexity, stays about the same. Furthermore we discovered that while transformation code in Java SE14 requires up to 25% less lines of code, the number of words written in both versions stays about the same. And while the written number of words stays about the same their distribution throughout the code changes significantly. Based on these results, we discuss the concrete advancements in newer Java versions. We also discuss to which extent new language advancements justify writing transformations in a general purpose language rather than a dedicated transformation language. We further indicate potential avenues for future research on the comparison of MTLs and GPLs in a model transformation context.

show abstract

“…Year: 2019 Description: Discussion about the language that should be used to express constraints in a future variability modeling language. He exposes the problems about using the Object Constraints Language (OCL) standard which is tied to MDE [26] and bets for simplicity and reusing in the definition of the constraints expressions, as in the new [12] constraint language for MDE. Our approach: Language designers can freely decide how to model the constraints as an independent module, without forcing the use of OCL.…”

Section: Language Constructs and Language Levelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extensible and modular abstract syntax for feature modeling based on language constructs

Horcas¹,

Pinto²,

Fuentes³

2020

Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Systems and Software Product Line: Volume a - Volume A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the definition of feature models in 1990, a large number of language constructs have emerged. Each language construct usually comes with its own abstract and concrete syntax, its semantics, and even its complete language dialect and tool support. Nowadays, there is a consensus in the Software Product Line community about a need for defining a common variability modeling language. But the fact of the matter is that it is very complex to achieve a good compromise between how expressive the language should be and the effort of developing practical tools for a language with all possible language constructs. In this paper, we propose an extensible model-driven engineering approach for defining the abstract syntax of feature modeling language constructs that could be tailored to different needs and domains. We formalize our approach as a set of modular and reusable metamodels that allows practitioners to decide which subset of language constructs to use through: (1) generating a new variability language; and (2) managing feature models with different level of expressiveness. We provide an instantiation and implementation of our approach.

show abstract

Aocl : A Pure-Java Constraint and Transformation Language for MDE

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 publications

Traceable Multi-view Model Integration: A Transformation Pipeline for Agile Production Systems Engineering

Traceable Multi-view Model Integration: A Transformation Pipeline for Agile Production Systems Engineering

Contrasting dedicated model transformation languages versus general purpose languages: a historical perspective on ATL versus Java based on complexity and size

Extensible and modular abstract syntax for feature modeling based on language constructs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About