No abstract

Abstract. There has been substantial recent interest in captured design expertise expressed as design patterns. Prevalent descriptions of these design patterns suffer from two demerits. Firstly, they capture specific instances of pattern deployment, rather than the essential pattern itself, thus the spirit of the pattern is often lost in the superfluous details of the specific instances described. Secondly, existing pattern descriptions rely upon relatively informal diagrammatic notations supplemented with natural language annotations. This can result in imprecision and ambiguity. This paper addresses these problems by separating the specification of patterns into three models (role, type, and class). The most abstract (role-centric) model presents patterns in their purest form, capturing their essential spirit without deleterious detail. A role-model is refined by a type-model (adding usuallydomain-specific constraints), which is further refined by a class-model (forming a concrete deployment). We utilise recent advances in visual modelling notation to achieve greater precision without resorting to obtuse mathematical symbols. A set-oriented view of state, operations, and instances is adopted, permitting their abstract presentation in models via this visual notation. This paper utilises these ideas in the unambiguous specification of a selection of prominent design patterns. The expectation is that precise visual pattern specification will firstly enable clear communication between domain experts and pattern writers (and ultimately pattern users), and secondly enable CASE tool support for design patterns, permitting the designer (pattern user) to operate at a higher level of abstraction without ambiguity.

The Model-Driven Architecture initiative of the OMG promotes the idea of transformations in the context of mapping from platform independent to platform specific models. Additionally, the popularity of XML and the wide spread use of XSLT has raised the profile of model transformation as an important technique for computing. In fact, computing may well be moving to a new paradigm in which models are considered first class entities and transformations between them are a major function performed on those models. This paper proposes an approach to defining and implementing model transformations which uses metamodelling patterns to capture the essence of mathematical relations. It shows how these patterns can be used to define the relationship between two different metamodels. A goal of the approach is to enable complete specifications from which tools can be generated. The paper describes implementations of the examples, which have been partially generated from the definitions using a tool generation tool. A number of issues emerge which need to be solved in order to achieve the stated goal; these are discussed.

Abstract. Metamodelling is becoming a standard way of defining languages such as the UML. A language definition distinguishes between concrete syntax, abstract syntax and semantics domain. It is possible to define all three using a metamodelling approach, but it is less clear how to define the transformations between them. This paper proposes an approach which uses metamodelling patterns that capture the essence of mathematical relations. It shows how these patterns can be used to define both the relationship between concrete syntax and abstract syntax, and between abstract syntax and semantics domain, for a fragment of UML. A goal of the approach is to provide a complete specification of a language from which intelligent tools can be generated. The extent to which the approach meets this goal is discussed in the paper.

Spider diagrams combine and extend Venn diagrams and Euler circles to express constraints on sets and their relationships with other sets. These diagrams can be used in conjunction with object-oriented modelling notations such as the Unified Modeling Language. This paper summarises the main syntax and semantics of spider diagrams. It also introduces inference rules for reasoning with spider diagrams and a rule for combining spider diagrams. This system is shown to be sound but not complete. Disjunctive diagrams are considered as one way of enriching the system to allow combination of diagrams so that no semantic information is lost. The relationship of this system of spider diagrams to other similar systems, which are known to be sound and complete, is explored briefly.