Multilevel coupled model transformations for precise and reusable definition of model behaviour

Abstract

The use of Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs) is a promising field for the development of tools tailored to specific problem spaces, effectively diminishing the complexity of hand-made software. With the goal of making models as precise, simple and reusable as possible, we augment DSLs with concepts from multilevel modelling, where the number of abstraction levels are not limited. This is particularly useful for DSL definitions with behaviour, whose concepts inherently belong to different levels of abstraction. Here, models can represent the state of the modelled system and evolve using model transformations. These transformations can benefit from a multilevel setting, becoming a precise and reusable definition of the semantics for behavioural modelling languages. We present in this paper the concept of Multilevel Coupled Model Transformations, together with examples, formal definitions and tools to assess their conceptual soundness and practical value.

Multilevel Typed Graph Transformations

“…A preliminary version of typing chains are an implicit constituent of the concept "deep metamodeling stack" introduced in [22] to formalize concepts like parallel linguistic and ontological typing, linguistic extensions, deep instantiation and potencies in deep metamodeling. We revised this earlier version and further developed it to a concept of its own which serves as a foundation of our approach to multilevel typed model transformations in [20,26]. Compared to [20], we present in this paper a radically revised and extended theory of multilevel typed graph transformations.…”

“…We revised this earlier version and further developed it to a concept of its own which serves as a foundation of our approach to multilevel typed model transformations in [20,26]. Compared to [20], we present in this paper a radically revised and extended theory of multilevel typed graph transformations. In particular, the theory is now more powerful, since we drop the condition that typing chain morphisms have to be closed (see Definition 5).…”

“…In particular, the theory is now more powerful, since we drop the condition that typing chain morphisms have to be closed (see Definition 5). Moreover, we detail the FPBC step which is missing in [20]. Due to space limitations, we will not present the background results concerning the equivalence between the practice of individual direct typing -which are used in applications and implementations -and our categorical reformulation of this practice by means of typing chains.…”

“…Underlying Graph Transformation. To meet the characteristics of our application areas [19][20][21] we work with cospans L I R λ ρ of inclusion graph homomorphisms, where I = L ∪ R, as the underlying graph transformation rule of a multilevel typed rule. To apply such a rule [7,12,13], we have to find a match μ : L → S of L in a graph S at the bottom-most level of an MLM hierarchy.…”

“…multiple typing, linguistic extension and deep instantiation), as well as the exact nature of the techniques used for MLM are well studied in the literature [1,[4][5][6]8,10,17]. Our particular approach [19,20] to MLM facilitates the separation of concerns by allowing integration of different multilevel modeling hierarchies as separate aspects of the system to be modelled. In addition, we enhance reusability of concepts and their behaviour by allowing the definition of flexible transformation rules which are applicable to different hierarchies with a variable number of levels.…”