Domain‐Specific Modeling

Kelly, Steven; Tolvanen, Juha-Pekka

doi:10.1002/9780470249260

Cited by 563 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Guizzard et al [8] propose the usage of an upper ontology to design and evaluate domain concepts (challenge (3)) whereas Bräuer and Lochmann [9] propose an upper ontology for describing interoperability among DSLs (challenge (2)). Nevertheless, the application of ontology languages and technologies to address the remaining challenges (1) and (4) remains an open issue.…”

Section: (Challenge (5))mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An ontology-based framework for domain-specific modeling

Walter¹,

Parreiras²,

Staab³

2012

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Domain-specific languages (DSLs) provide abstractions and notations for better understanding and easier modeling of applications in a special domain. Current shortcomings of DSLs include learning curve and formal semantics. This paper reports on a framework that allows the use of ontology technologies to describe and reason on DSLs. The formal semantics of OWL together with reasoning services allows for addressing constraint definition, progressive evaluation, suggestions, and debugging. The approach integrates existing metamodels and concrete syntaxes in a new technical space. A scenario in which domain models for network devices are created illustrates the framework.

show abstract

Section: (Challenge (5))mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A variety of different domain-specific languages are used to develop one large software system. Each domain-specific language focuses on different problem domains and as far as possible on automatic code generation [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An ontology-based framework for domain-specific modeling

Walter¹,

Parreiras²,

Staab³

2012

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this work we use LDE i* [12], a Domain Specific Language (DSL) [17] for i*. Its main objective is to ensure a better management of complexity and scalability of their models by introducing the notion of compartment where elements of an i* model can be grouped.…”

Section: B the I* Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model-Driven Development for Requirements Engineering: The Case of Goal-Oriented Approaches

Monteiro

Araújo

Amaral

et al. 2012

2012 Eighth International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering (GORE) has received increasing attention over the past few years. There are several goal-oriented approaches, each one using different kinds of models. We believe that it would be useful to relate them or even perform transformations among them automatically, in order to understand their similarities and differences, their advantages and disadvantages, allowing a possible migration or comparison between approaches. This is something that has not received enough attention. In this paper we propose the definition and implementation of goal model transformations between i* and KAOS. As an immediate contribution, the approach can be used to migrate from one goal model to another through automatic model transformations. This approach also contributes to relate the concepts of i* and KAOS models and will help, for example, a development team in making the decision on which approach to follow, according to the nature of the project and the expressiveness of an approach to represent certain concepts (e.g., obstacles are represented explicitly in KAOS, but not in i*). Another contribution is to facilitate communication among members of the same team, if they are specialized in different approaches.

show abstract

“…In this respect, Domain-Specific Languages can be exploited to provide an abstraction level tailored to the domain experts by providing them with concepts closer to their expertise and to improve automation of derived artefacts [Bez05,KT08]. Due to their specificness, modelling languages are typically designed and subsequently maintained in an incremental manner; in this way, their expressiveness can be manipulated to add, fix, and/or refine available concepts [Fav05].…”

Section: Metamodel Versioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Solution for Concurrent Versioning of Metamodels and Models.

Cicchetti¹,

Ciccozzi²,

Leveque³

2012

JOT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model-Driven Engineering has been widely recognised as a powerful paradigm for shifting the focus of software development from coding to modelling in order to cope with the rising complexity of modern systems. Models become the main artefacts in the development process and therefore undergo evolutions performed in different ways until the final implementation is produced. Moreover, modelling languages are expected to evolve too and such evolutions have to be taken into account when dealing with model versioning. Since consistency between models and related metamodels is one of the pillars on which model-driven engineering relies, evolution of models and metamodels cannot be considered as independent events in a model versioning system. This article exploits model comparison and merging mechanisms to provide a solution to the issues related to model versioning when considering metamodel and model manipulations as concurrent and even misaligned. A scenario-based description of the challenges arising from versioning of models is given and a running example is exploited to demonstrate the proposed solutions.

show abstract

Domain‐Specific Modeling

Cited by 563 publications

References 0 publications

An ontology-based framework for domain-specific modeling

An ontology-based framework for domain-specific modeling

Model-Driven Development for Requirements Engineering: The Case of Goal-Oriented Approaches

A Solution for Concurrent Versioning of Metamodels and Models.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About