On the Combination of Domain Specific Modeling Languages

  • Antonio Vallecillo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6138)


Domain Specific Modeling Languages (DSMLs) are essential elements in Model-based Engineering. Each DSML allows capturing certain properties of the system, while abstracting other properties away. Nowadays DSMLs are mostly used in silos to solve specific problems. However, there are many occasions when multiple DSMLs need to be combined to design systems in a modular way. In this paper we discuss some scenarios of use and several mechanisms for DSML combination. We propose a general framework for combining DSMLs that subsumes them, based on the concept of viewpoint unification, and its realization using model-driven techniques.


Modeling Language Model Transformation Software Product Line Concrete Syntax Message Sequence Chart 
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.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language 2.1.1 Superstructure Specification. OMG, Needham (MA), USA, OMG doc. formal/07-02-05 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    OMG: Systems Modeling Language. OMG, Needham (MA), USA (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OMG: UML Profile for MARTE: Modeling and Analysis of Real-Time and Embedded systems. OMG, Needham (MA), USA (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zito, A., Diskin, Z., Dingel, J.: Package merge in UML 2: Practice vs. theory? In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 185–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernstein, P.A., Pottinger, R.A.: Merging models based on given correspondences. In: VLDB 2003, Berlin, Germany pp. 862–873 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barbero, M., Jouault, F., Gray, J., Bézivin, J.: A practical approach to model extension. In: Akehurst, D.H., Vogel, R., Paige, R.F. (eds.) ECMDA-FA. LNCS, vol. 4530, pp. 32–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Emerson, M., Sztipanovits, J.: Techniques for metamodel composition. In: Proc. of the 6th Workshop on Domain Specific Modeling at OOPSLA 2006, pp. 123–139 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hudak, P.: Building domain-specific embedded languages. ACM Comput. Surv. 28(4) (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hofer, C., Ostermann, K., Rendel, T., Moors, A.: Polymorphic embedding of DSLs. In: Proc. of GPCE 2008, Nashville, TN, pp. 137–148. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ledeczi, A., Nordstrom, G., Karsai, G., Volgyesi, P., Maroti, M.: On metamodel composition. In: Proc. of CCA 2001, pp. 756–760 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Estublier, J., Vega, G., Ionita, A.D.: Composing domain-specific languages for wide-scope software engineering applications. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 69–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Didonet Del Fabro, M., Jouault, F.: Model transformation and weaving in the AMMA platform. In: GTTSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 4143, pp. 71–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bézivin, J., Bouzitouna, S., Didonet Del Fabro, M., Gervais, M.P., Jouault, F., Kolovos, D., Kurtev, I., Paige, R.F.: A canonical scheme for model composition. In: Rensink, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4066, pp. 346–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    White, J., et al.: Improving domain-specific language reuse with software product line techniques. IEEE Software 26(4), 47–53 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bowman, H., Steen, M., Boiten, E.A., Derrick, J.: A formal framework for viewpoint consistency. Formal Methods in System Design 21(2), 111–166 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Linington, P.: Black Cats and Coloured Birds What do Viewpoint Correspondences Do? In: Proc. of WODPEC 2007, Maryland, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clark, T., Sammut, P., Willans, J.: Applied Metamodelling, 2nd edn., Ceteva (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Romero, J.R., Jaén, J.I., Vallecillo, A.: Realizing correspondences in multi-viewpoint specifications. In: Proc. of EDOC 2009, Auckland, NZ, pp. 163–172. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO/IEC: Information technology – Open distributed processing – Use of UML for ODP system specifications. ISO and ITU-T, ISO/IEC IS 19793, ITU-T X.906 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pedro, L., Risoldi, M., Buchs, D., Barroca, B., Amaral, V.: Composing visual syntax for domain specific languages. In: Proc. of HCI 2009, San Diego, CA. LNCS, vol. 5611, pp. 889–898. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D’Souza, D.F., Wills, A.C.: Objects, Components, and Frameworks with UML. In: The Catalysis Approach, Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming 8, 231–274 (1987)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    ITU-T Recommendation Z.120: Message Sequence Charts (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Groenewegen, D.M., Hemel, Z., Kats, L.C.L., Visser, E.: WebDSL: A Domain-Specific Language for Dynamic Web Applications. In: Mielke, N., Zimmermann, O. (eds.) Companion to OOPSLA 2008, pp. 779–780. ACM, New York (2008), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Espinoza, H., Cancila, D., Selic, B., Gérard, S.: A practical approach to model extension. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 98–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moreno, N., Fraternali, P., Vallecillo, A.: WebML Modelling in UML. IET Software 1(3), 67–80 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lenzerini, M.: Data integration: A theoretical perspective. In: Proc. of PODS 2002, pp. 233–246 (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    ISO/IEC: RM-ODP. Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing. ISO and ITU-T, Geneva, Switzerland, ISO/IEC 10746, ITU-T Rec. X.901-X.904 (1997)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Atkinson, C., Stoll, D.: Orthographic modeling environment. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Inverardi, P. (eds.) FASE 2008. LNCS, vol. 4961, pp. 93–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Abouzahra, A., Bézivin, J., Didonet Del Fabro, M., Jouault, F.: A practical approach to bridging domain specific languages with UML profiles. In: Best Practices for Model Driven Software Development Workshop at OOPSLA (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bézivin, J., Hillairet, G., Jouault, F., Kurtev, I., Piers, W.: Bridging the MS/DSL tools and the Eclipse modeling framework. In: Proc. of the International Workshop on Software Factories at OOPSLA (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wimmer, M., Schauerhuber, A., Strommer, M., Schwinger, W., Kappel, G.: A semi-automatic approach for bridging DSLs with UML. In: Proc. of 7th Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling at OOPSLA (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brambilla, M., Fraternali, P., Tisi, M.: A transformation framework to bridge Domain Specific Languages to MDA. In: Chaudron, M.R.V. (ed.) Models in Software Engineering. LNCS, vol. 5421, pp. 167–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chen, K.: et al.: Semantic anchoring with model transformations. In: Hartman, A., Kreische, D. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3748, pp. 115–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ruscio, D.D., Jouault, F., Kurtev, I., Bézivin, J., Pierantonio, A.: Extending AMMA for supporting dynamic semantics specifications of DSLs. Technical Report 06.02, Laboratoire d’Informatique de Nantes-Atlantique (LINA), Nantes, France (2006)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Doh, K.G., Mosses, P.D.: Composing programming languages by combining action-semantics modules. Sci. Comput. Program. 47(1), 3–36 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pedro, L., Amaral, V., Buchs, D.: Foundations for a Domain Specific Modeling Language prototyping environment: A compositional approach. In: Proc. of the DSM workshop at OOPSLA 2008, Nashville, TN, pp. 26–33 (2008)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Koch, N., Knapp, A., Zhang, G., Baumeister, H.: UML-Based Web Engineering: An Approach Based on Standards. In: Web Engineering: Modelling and Implementing Web Applications. Human-Computer Interaction Series, vol. 12, pp. 157–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Vallecillo
    • 1
  1. 1.GISUM/Atenea Research GroupUniversidad de MálagaSpain

Personalised recommendations