Rewriting Constraint Models with Metamodels

An important challenge in constraint programming is to rewrite constraint models into executable programs calculat- ing the solutions. This phase of constraint processing may require translations between constraint programming lan- guages, transformations of constraint representations, model optimizations, and tuning of solving strategies. In this paper, we introduce a pivot metamodel describing the common fea- tures of constraint models including different kinds of con- straints, statements like conditionals and loops, and other first-class elements like object classes and predicates. This metamodel is general enough to cope with the constructions of many languages, from object-oriented modeling languages to logic languages, but it is independent from them. The rewriting operations manipulate metamodel instances apart from languages. As a consequence, the rewriting operations apply whatever languages are selected and they are able to manage model semantic information. A bridge is created between the metamodel space and languages using parsing techniques. Tools from the software engineering world can be useful to implement this framework

Rewriting Constraint Models with Metamodels

International audienceAn important challenge in constraint programming is to rewrite constraint models into executable programs calculat- ing the solutions. This phase of constraint processing may require translations between constraint programming lan- guages, transformations of constraint representations, model optimizations, and tuning of solving strategies. In this paper, we introduce a pivot metamodel describing the common fea- tures of constraint models including different kinds of con- straints, statements like conditionals and loops, and other first-class elements like object classes and predicates. This metamodel is general enough to cope with the constructions of many languages, from object-oriented modeling languages to logic languages, but it is independent from them. The rewriting operations manipulate metamodel instances apart from languages. As a consequence, the rewriting operations apply whatever languages are selected and they are able to manage model semantic information. A bridge is created between the metamodel space and languages using parsing techniques. Tools from the software engineering world can be useful to implement this framework

Automatically Discovering Hidden Transformation Chaining Constraints

Model transformations operate on models conforming to precisely defined metamodels. Consequently, it often seems relatively easy to chain them: the output of a transformation may be given as input to a second one if metamodels match. However, this simple rule has some obvious limitations. For instance, a transformation may only use a subset of a metamodel. Therefore, chaining transformations appropriately requires more information. We present here an approach that automatically discovers more detailed information about actual chaining constraints by statically analyzing transformations. The objective is to provide developers who decide to chain transformations with more data on which to base their choices. This approach has been successfully applied to the case of a library of endogenous transformations. They all have the same source and target metamodel but have some hidden chaining constraints. In such a case, the simple metamodel matching rule given above does not provide any useful information

Using ATL to define advanced and flexible constraint model transformations

Transforming constraint models is an important task in re- cent constraint programming systems. User-understandable models are defined during the modeling phase but rewriting or tuning them is manda- tory to get solving-efficient models. We propose a new architecture al- lowing to define bridges between any (modeling or solver) languages and to implement model optimizations. This architecture follows a model- driven approach where the constraint modeling process is seen as a set of model transformations. Among others, an interesting feature is the def- inition of transformations as concept-oriented rules, i.e. based on types of model elements where the types are organized into a hierarchy called a metamodel

Generic Model Refactorings

Many modeling languages share some common concepts and principles. For example, Java, MOF, and UML share some aspects of the concepts\ud of classes, methods, attributes, and inheritance. However, model\ud transformations such as refactorings specified for a given language\ud cannot be readily reused for another language because their related\ud metamodels may be structurally different. Our aim is to enable a\ud flexible reuse of model transformations across various metamodels.\ud Thus, in this paper, we present an approach allowing the specification\ud of generic model transformations, in particular refactorings, so\ud that they can be applied to different metamodels. Our approach relies\ud on two mechanisms: (1) an adaptation based mainly on the weaving\ud of aspects; (2) the notion of model typing, an extension of object\ud typing in the model-oriented context. We validated our approach by\ud performing some experiments that consisted of specifying three well\ud known refactorings (Encapsulate Field, Move Method, and Pull Up Method)\ud and applying each of them onto three different metamodels (Java,\ud MOF, and UML)

Evaluation of Kermeta for Solving Graph-based Problems

Kermeta is a meta-language for specifying the structure and behavior of graphs of interconnected objects called models. In this paper,\ud we show that Kermeta is relatively suitable for solving three graph-based\ud problems. First, Kermeta allows the specification of generic model\ud transformations such as refactorings that we apply to different metamodels\ud including Ecore, Java, and Uml. Second, we demonstrate the extensibility\ud of Kermeta to the formal language Alloy using an inter-language model\ud transformation. Kermeta uses Alloy to generate recommendations for\ud completing partially specified models. Third, we show that the Kermeta\ud compiler achieves better execution time and memory performance compared\ud to similar graph-based approaches using a common case study. The\ud three solutions proposed for those graph-based problems and their\ud evaluation with Kermeta according to the criteria of genericity,\ud extensibility, and performance are the main contribution of the paper.\ud Another contribution is the comparison of these solutions with those\ud proposed by other graph-based tools

An Algebra of Hierarchical Graphs

We define an algebraic theory of hierarchical graphs, whose axioms characterise graph isomorphism: two terms are equated exactly when they represent the same graph. Our algebra can be understood as a high-level language for describing graphs with a node-sharing, embedding structure, and it is then well suited for defining graphical representations of software models where nesting and linking are key aspects

CAViT: a Consistency Maintenance Framework based on Transformation Contracts

Design by contract is a software correctness methodology for procedural and object-oriented software. It relies on logical assertions to detect implementation mistakes at run-time or to proof the absence thereof at compile-time. Design by contract has found a new application in model driven engineering, a methodology that aims to manage the complexity of frameworks by relying on models and transformations. A ``transformation contract\u27\u27 is a pair of constraints that together describe the effect of a transformation rule on the set of models contained in its transformation definition: the postcondition describes the model consistency state that the rule can establish provided that its precondition is satisfied. A transformation contract of a rule can be maintained automatically by calling the rule (1) as soon as the invariant corresponding to its postcondition is violated and (2) provided that its precondition is satisfied. Domain specific visual languages can facilitate the implementation of the actual transformation rules since they hide the complexity of graph transformation algorithms and standards for tool interoperability. In this talk, we describe CAViT: a framework that integrates a visual model transformation tool with a design by contract tool by relying on OMG standards such as UML, OCL and MOF

A formal framework for model management

El Desarrollo de Software Dirigido por Modelos es una rama de la Ingeniería del Software en la que los artefactos software se representan como modelos para incrementar la productividad, calidady eficiencia económica en el proceso de desarrollo de software, donde un modelo proporciona una representación abstracta del código final de una aplicación. En este campo, la iniciativa Model-Driven Architecture (MDA), patrocinada por la OMG, está constituida por una familia de estándares industriales, entre los que se destacan: Meta-Object Facility (MOF), Unified Modeling Language (UML), Object Constraint Language (OCL), XML Metadata Interchange (XMI), y Query/Views/Transformations (QVT). Estos estándares proporcionan unas directrices comunes para herramientas basadas en modelos y para procesos de desarrollo de software dirigidos por modelos. Su objetivo consiste en mejorar la interoperabilidad entre marcos de trabajo ejecutables, en automatizar el proceso desarrollo de software de software y en proporcionar técnicas que eviten errores durante ese proceso. El estándar MOF describe un marco de trabajo genérico que permite definir la sintaxis abstracta de lenguajes de modelado. Este estándar persigue la definición de los conceptos básicos que son utilizados en procesos de desarrollo de software dirigidos por modelos: que es un modelo, que es un metamodelo, qué es reflexión en un marco de trabajo basado en MOF, etc. Sin embargo, la mayoría de estos conceptos carecen de una semántica formal en la versión actual del estándar MOF. Además, OCL se utiliza como un lenguage de definición de restricciones que permite añadir semántica a un metamodelo MOF. Desafortunadamente, la relación entre un metamodelo y sus restricciones OCL también carece de una semántica formal. Este hecho es debido, en parte, a que los metamodelos solo pueden ser definidos como dato en un marco de trabajo basado en MOF. El estándar MOF también proporciona las llamadas facilidades de reflexión de MOF (MOF ReflectiBoronat Moll, A. (2007). A formal framework for model management [Tesis doctoral no publicada]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/1964Palanci