Bridging concrete and abstract syntaxes in model‐driven engineering: a case of rule languages

The paper covers the problem of bridging the gap between abstract and textual concrete syntaxes of software languages in the model‐driven engineering (MDE) context. This problem has been well studied in the context of programming languages, but due to the obvious difference in the definitions of abstract syntax, MDE requires a new set of engineering principles. We first explore different approaches to defining abstract and concrete syntaxes in the MDE context. Next, we investigate the current state of languages and techniques used for bridging between textual concrete and abstract syntaxes in the context of MDE. Finally, we report on lessons learned in experimenting with the current technologies. In order to provide a comprehensive coverage of the problem under study, we have selected a case of Web rule languages. Web rule languages leverage various types of syntax specification languages; and they are complex in nature and large in terms of the language elements. Thus, they provide us with a realistic analysis framework based on which we can draw general conclusions. Based on the series of experiments that we conducted with the analyzed languages, we propose a method for approaching such problems and report on the empirical results obtained from the data collected during our experiments. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Martin Gogolla,et al.  OCL for (meta-)models in multiple application domains , 2006, MoDELS'06.

[2]  Martin Gogolla,et al.  Model transformations? transformation models! , 2006, MoDELS'06.

[3]  Dan Brickley,et al.  Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification , 2002 .

[4]  Jean Bézivin,et al.  Technological Spaces: An Initial Appraisal , 2002 .

[5]  EngelenLuc,et al.  Integrating Textual and Graphical Modelling Languages , 2010 .

[6]  Adrian Giurca,et al.  On Interchanging Between OWL / SWRL and UML / OCL , 2006 .

[7]  James R. Cordy,et al.  Evolving TXL , 2006, 2006 Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation.

[8]  Harold Boley,et al.  The Rule Markup Language: RDF-XML Data Model, XML Schema Hierarchy, and XSL Transformations , 2001, INAP.

[9]  Pascal Hitzler,et al.  A Metamodel and UML Profile for Rule-Extended OWL DL Ontologies , 2006, ESWC.

[10]  Jean Bézivin,et al.  TCS:: a DSL for the specification of textual concrete syntaxes in model engineering , 2006, GPCE '06.

[11]  Eelco Visser,et al.  Program Transformation with Stratego/XT: Rules, Strategies, Tools, and Systems in Stratego/XT 0.9 , 2003, Domain-Specific Program Generation.

[12]  Mark van den Brand,et al.  Transforming Process Algebra Models into UML State Machines: Bridging a Semantic Gap? , 2008, ICMT@TOOLS.

[13]  Paul Browne,et al.  JBoss Drools Business Rules , 2009 .

[14]  Dan Brickley,et al.  Rdf vocabulary description language 1.0 : Rdf schema , 2004 .

[15]  Arie van Deursen,et al.  The Asf+Sdf Meta-Environment: a Component-Based Language Development Environment , 2001, LDTA@ETAPS.

[16]  Axel Polleres,et al.  XSPARQL: Traveling between the XML and RDF Worlds - and Avoiding the XSLT Pilgrimage , 2008, ESWC.

[17]  Liviu Badea,et al.  Semantic Web Reasoning for Analyzing Gene Expression Profiles , 2006, PPSWR.

[18]  Peter F. Patel-Schneider,et al.  OWL Web Ontology Language XML Presentation Syntax , 2003 .

[19]  Thomas Baar,et al.  Making Metamodels Aware of Concrete Syntax , 2005, ECMDA-FA.

[20]  Mark van den Brand,et al.  Integrating Textual and Graphical Modelling Languages , 2010, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[21]  Jörn Guy Süß,et al.  Platform Independent Model Transformation Based on Triple , 2004, Middleware.

[22]  Krzysztof Czarnecki,et al.  Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches , 2006, IBM Syst. J..

[23]  Shane Sendall,et al.  Model Transformation: The Heart and Soul of Model-Driven Software Development , 2003, IEEE Softw..

[24]  Jim Steel,et al.  Model transformation: a declarative, reusable patterns approach , 2003, Seventh IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2003. Proceedings..

[25]  Michael Kifer,et al.  Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages , 1995, JACM.

[26]  Jean-Marc Jézéquel,et al.  Model-Driven analysis and synthesis of concrete syntax , 2006, MoDELS'06.

[27]  Christopher J. Matheus SWRLp: An XML-Based SWRL Presentation Syntax , 2004, RuleML.

[28]  Ralf Lämmel,et al.  Towards an engineering discipline for GRAMMARWARE Draft as of August 17 , 2003 , 2003 .

[29]  Anneke Kleppe,et al.  Software Language Engineering: Creating Domain-Specific Languages Using Metamodels , 2008 .

[30]  Gerd Wagner,et al.  The Abstract Syntax of RuleML - Towards a General Web Rule Language Framework , 2004, IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI'04).

[31]  Patrick Valduriez,et al.  Semi-automatic model integration using matching transformations and weaving models , 2007, SAC '07.

[32]  Jean Bézivin,et al.  On the unification power of models , 2005, Software & Systems Modeling.

[33]  Ed Seidewitz,et al.  What Models Mean , 2003, IEEE Softw..

[34]  Stefan Decker,et al.  TRIPLE - A Query, Inference, and Transformation Language for the Semantic Web , 2002, SEMWEB.

[35]  Jean-Marie Favre,et al.  Towards a Basic Theory to Model Model Driven Engineering , 2004 .

[36]  Thomas Baar,et al.  An OCL semantics specified with QVT , 2006, MoDELS'06.

[37]  Jürgen Dingel,et al.  A Practical Evaluation of Using TXL for Model Transformation , 2009, SLE.

[38]  Jean Bézivin,et al.  Model-based Technology Integration with the Technical Space Concept , 2006 .

[39]  K. Bandeen-Roche,et al.  Appendix 1 , 2019, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[40]  H. Lan,et al.  SWRL : A semantic Web rule language combining OWL and ruleML , 2004 .