Engineering Object-Oriented Semantics Using Graph Transformations

In this paper we describe the application of the theory of graph transformations to the practise of language design. We have defined the semantics of a small but realistic object-oriented language (called TAAL) by mapping the language constructs to graphs and their operational semantics to graph transformation rules. In the process we establish a mapping between UML models and graphs. TAAL was developed for the purpose of this paper, as an extensive case study in engineering object-oriented language semantics using graph transformation. It incorporates the basic aspects of many commonly used object-oriented programming languages: apart from essential imperative programming constructs, it includes inheritance, object creation and method overriding. The language specification is based on a number of meta-models written in UML. Both the static and dynamic semantics are defined using graph rewriting rules. In the course of the case study, we have built an Eclipse plug-in that automatically transforms arbitrary TAAL programs into graphs, in a graph format readable by another tool. This second tool is called Groove, and it is able to execute graph transformations. By combining both tools we are able to visually simulate the execution of any TAAL program

Subjects, Models, Languages, Transformations

Discussions about model-driven approaches tend to be hampered by terminological confusion. This is at least partially caused by a lack of formal precision in defining the basic concepts, including that of "model" and "thing being modelled" - which we call subject in this paper. We propose a minimal criterion that a model should fulfill: essentially, it should come equipped with a clear and unambiguous membership test; in other words, a notion of which subjects it models. We then go on to discuss a certain class of models of models that we call languages, which apart from defining their own membership test also determine membership of their members. Finally, we introduce transformations on each of these layers: a subject transformation is essentially a pair of subjects, a model transformation is both a pair of models and a model of pairs (namely, subject transformations), and a language transformation is both a pair of languages and a language of model transformations. We argue that our framework has the benefits of formal precision (there can be no doubt about whether something satifies our criteria for being a model, a language or a transformation) and minimality (it is hard to imagine a case of modelling or transformation not having the characterstics that we propose)

Model transformations and Tool Integration

Model transformations are increasingly recognised as being of significant importance to many areas of software development and integration. Recent attention on model transformations has particularly focused on the OMGs Queries/Views/Transformations (QVT) Request for Proposals (RFP). In this paper I motivate the need for dedicated approaches to model transformations, particularly for the data involved in tool integration, outline the challenges involved, and then present a number of technologies and techniques which allow the construction of flexible, powerful and practical model transformations

A graph-based aspect interference detection approach for UML-based aspect-oriented models

Aspect Oriented Modeling (AOM) techniques facilitate separate modeling of concerns and allow for a more flexible composition of these than traditional modeling technique. While this improves the understandability of each submodel, in order to reason about the behavior of the composed system and to detect conflicts among submodels, automated tool support is required. Current techniques for conflict detection among aspects generally have at least one of the following weaknesses. They require to manually model the abstract semantics for each system; or they derive the system semantics from code assuming one specific aspect-oriented language. Defining an extra semantics model for verification bears the risk of inconsistencies between the actual and the verified design; verifying only at implementation level hinders fixng errors in earlier phases. We propose a technique for fully automatic detection of conflicts between aspects at the model level; more specifically, our approach works on UML models with an extension for modeling pointcuts and advice. As back-end we use a graph-based model checker, for which we have defined an operational semantics of UML diagrams, pointcuts and advice. In order to simulate the system, we automatically derive a graph model from the diagrams. The result is another graph, which represents all possible program executions, and which can be verified against a declarative specification of invariants.\ud To demonstrate our approach, we discuss a UML-based AOM model of the "Crisis Management System" and a possible design and evolution scenario. The complexity of the system makes con°icts among composed aspects hard to detect: already in the case of two simulated aspects, the state space contains 623 di®erent states and 9 different execution paths. Nevertheless, in case the right pruning methods are used, the state-space only grows linearly with the number of aspects; therefore, the automatic analysis scales

An Institutional Framework for Heterogeneous Formal Development in UML

We present a framework for formal software development with UML. In contrast to previous approaches that equip UML with a formal semantics, we follow an institution based heterogeneous approach. This can express suitable formal semantics of the different UML diagram types directly, without the need to map everything to one specific formalism (let it be first-order logic or graph grammars). We show how different aspects of the formal development process can be coherently formalised, ranging from requirements over design and Hoare-style conditions on code to the implementation itself. The framework can be used to verify consistency of different UML diagrams both horizontally (e.g., consistency among various requirements) as well as vertically (e.g., correctness of design or implementation w.r.t. the requirements)

An algebraic semantics for QVT-relations check-only transformations

Fundamenta Informaticae, 114 1, Juan de Lara, Esther Guerra, An algebraic semantics for QVT-relations check-only transformations, 73-101, Copyright 2012, with permission from IOS PressQVT is the standard for model transformation defined by the OMG in the context of the Model-Driven Architecture. It is made of several transformation languages. Among them, QVT-Relations is the one with the highest level of abstraction, as it permits developing bidirectional transformations in a declarative, relational style. Unfortunately, the standard only provides a semiformal description of its semantics, which hinders analysis and has given rise to ambiguities in existing tool implementations. In order to improve this situation, we propose a formal, algebraic semantics for QVT-Relations check-only transformations, defining a notion of satisfaction of QVT-Relations specifications by models.This work has been supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation with projects METEORIC (TIN2008-02081) and Go Lite (TIN2011-24139), and by the R&D program of the Community of Madrid with project “e-Madrid” (S2009/TIC-1650)