An Implementation Approach to Achieve Metamodel Independence in Domain Specific Model Manipulation Languages

Jerónimo Irazábal, Gabriela Pérez, Claudia Pons, Roxana Giandini


Model Driven Engineering proposes a software development process in which the key notions are models that allow engineers to precisely capture relevant aspects of a system from a given perspective and at an appropriate level of abstraction. Then, models are manipulated with the goal of enabling the automated development of a system from its corresponding models. Unlike general-purpose modeling languages, domain-specific modeling languages can simplify the development of complex software systems by providing domain-specific abstractions for modeling the system and its transformations in a precise but simple and concise way. In this work we elaborate on the notion of domain specific model manipulation language, that is to say a model manipulation language tailored to a specific domain. In contrast to well-known model manipulation languages, such as EOL or ATL, the language syntax and semantics are directly related to a specific domain and/or kind of manipulation, making manipulation easier to write and understand. We present an implementation approach achieving complete platform-independence. We illustrate the proposal through a practical example.


  1. ATLAS MegaModel Management. (2006). http://
  2. Baar, T., and Whittle, J. (2007). On the Usage of Concrete Syntax in Model Transformation Rules. In Book: Perspectives of Systems Informatics. LNCS 4378, Springer Heidelberg, Berlin.
  3. Barbero, M., Bézivin, J., and Jouault, F. (2007). Building a DSL for Interactive TV Applications with AMMA. In Proceedings of the TOOLS Europe 2007 Workshop on Model-Driven Development Tool Implementers Forum. Zurich, Switzerland.
  4. Blanc,X., Gervais, M., Lamari, M. and Sriplakich, P. (2004). Towards an integrated transformation environment (ITE) for model driven development (MDD). In Proceedings of the 8th World MultiConference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (SCI'2004), USA.
  5. Bravenboer, M., and Visser, E. (2004). Concrete syntax for objects: Domain-specific language embedding and assimilation without restrictions. In OOPSLA'04: Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, ACM Press. pp. 365-383.
  6. Cook Steve, Gareth Jones, Stuart Kent, and Alan Cameron Wills. (2007). Domain-Specific Development with Visual Studio DSL Tools. Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN 0321398203.
  7. Czarnecki, Helsen. (2006). Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM System Journal, v.45, n.3.
  8. DSMML (2011) DSMML/.
  9. Di Ruscio, D., Jouault, F., Kurtev, I., Bézivin, J., and Pierantonio, A. (2009): Extending AMMA for Supporting Dynamic Semantics Specifications of DSLs.Downloaded: 1/21/PDF/rr0602.pdf.
  10. Jouault Frédéric and Ivan Kurtev. (2005).Transforming Models with ATL. In: Jean-Michel Bruel (Ed.), Satellite Events at the MoDELS 2005 Conference, LNCS 3844. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg., Montego Bay, Jamaica (pp. 128-138) .
  11. Jouault Frédéric, Jean Bézivin, Charles Consel, Ivan Kurtev, and Fabien Latry. (2006). Building DSLs with AMMA/ATL, a Case Study on SPL and CPL Telephony Languages in Proceedings of the First ECOOP Workshop on Domain-Specific Program Development. Nantes, France.
  12. GME (2006).
  13. Greenfield, J., Short, K., Cook, S., Kent, S., and Crupi, J. (2004). Software Factories: Assembling Applications with Patterns, Models, Frameworks, and Tools (1st ed.): Wiley.
  14. Gronback R. C. (2009). Eclipse Modeling Project: A Domain-Specific Language (DSL) Toolkit. AddisonWesley Professional. ISBN: 0-321-53407-7.
  15. Hudak, P. (1998). Modular domain specific languages and tools. In ICSR'98: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Reuse, IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 134-142. June. Victoria, B.C., Canada.
  16. Irazábal J., Pons C., Neil C. (2010). Model transformation as a mechanism for the implementation of domain specific transformation languages. SADIO Electronic Journal of Informatics and Operations Research. vol. 9, no.1.
  17. Johannes, J., Zschaler, S., Fernandez, M., Castillo, A., Kolovos, D., and Paige, R. (2009). Abstracting Complex Languages through Transformation and Composition. In MoDELS'09: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 12th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. USA, LNCS, Springer. October. Denver, Colorado, USA.
  18. Kleppe, Anneke G., Warmer Jos, and Bast, Wim. (2003). MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Boston, MA, USA. AddisonWesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
  19. Kleppe, Anneke. (2006). MCC: A Model Transformation Environment. A. Rensink and J. Warmer (Eds.): ECMDA-FA 2006, LNCS 4066, Spain (pp. 173 - 187).
  20. Kolovos, D. S., Paige, R. F., and Polack, F. A. C. (2006). The Epsilon Object Language (EOL). In: Rensink, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4066, pp. 128-142. Springer Heidelberg.
  21. Kurtev, I. and Bézivin, J. and Jouault, F. and Valduriez, P. (2006) Model-based DSL frameworks. In: Companion to the 21st ACM SIGPLAN conference on Objectoriented programming systems, languages, and applications, Portland, Oregon, USA. (pp. 602-616). ACM Press. ISBN 1-59593-491-X.
  22. Mernik Marjan, Heering Jan, and Sloane Anthony M. (2005). When and how to develop domain specific languages. ACM Computing Surveys, v.37 n.4, p.316- 344.
  23. Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0. (2003). http://www.
  24. OCL. (2006).
  25. Oldevik, J. (2005).Transformation Composition Modeling Framework. DAIS 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3543, (pp. 108-114).
  26. Oldevik Jon. (2006). MOFScript User Guide. http://
  27. OMG. (2011).
  28. Pons Claudia, Giandini Roxana, and Pérez Gabriela. (2010). “Model Driven Software Development. Concepts and practical application”. Buenos Aires, Agentina. EDUNLP and McGraw-Hill Education.
  29. Pons Claudia, Irazábal Jerónimo, Giandini Roxana and Pérez Gabriela. (2011). On the semantics of domain specific transformation languages: implementation issues. Software Engineering: Methods, Modeling, and Teaching, Chapter 13. ISBN: 9789588692326.
  30. QVT Adopted Specification 2.0. (2005). http://www.
  31. Stahl, T., and Völter, (2006). M. Model-Driven Software Development. Chichester, England. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  32. Van Wyk, E., de Moor, O., Backhouse, K., and Kwiatkowski, P. (2002). Forwarding in attribute grammars for modular language design. In Horspool, R.N., ed.: Int Conf. on Compiler Construction. LNCS 2304, Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg pp. 128-142.
  33. Wagelaar, Dennis. (2008). Composition Techniques for Rule-based Model Transformation Languages. Procs. of ICMT2008 - Conference on Model Transformation. Zurich, Switzerland.
  34. Weske Mathias. (2008). Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, (pp. 3- 67). ISBN 978-3-540-73521-2.
  35. XTend. (2011).
  36. XText. (2011).

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Irazábal J., Pérez G., Pons C. and Giandini R. (2012). An Implementation Approach to Achieve Metamodel Independence in Domain Specific Model Manipulation Languages . In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Paradigm Trends - Volume 1: ICSOFT, ISBN 978-989-8565-19-8, pages 62-69. DOI: 10.5220/0004082800620069

in Bibtex Style

author={Jerónimo Irazábal and Gabriela Pérez and Claudia Pons and Roxana Giandini},
title={An Implementation Approach to Achieve Metamodel Independence in Domain Specific Model Manipulation Languages},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Paradigm Trends - Volume 1: ICSOFT,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Paradigm Trends - Volume 1: ICSOFT,
TI - An Implementation Approach to Achieve Metamodel Independence in Domain Specific Model Manipulation Languages
SN - 978-989-8565-19-8
AU - Irazábal J.
AU - Pérez G.
AU - Pons C.
AU - Giandini R.
PY - 2012
SP - 62
EP - 69
DO - 10.5220/0004082800620069