=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1731/report
|storemode=property
|title=Report of the Fourth Workshop on the Globalization of Modeling Languages (GEMOC 2016)
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1731/report.pdf
|volume=Vol-1731
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/models/DeantoniGSAK16
}}
==Report of the Fourth Workshop on the Globalization of Modeling Languages (GEMOC 2016)==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1731/report.pdf
Fourth Workshop on the Globalization of Modeling
Languages (GEMOC 2016) ?
Julien Deantoni1 , Eugene Syriani2 ,
Moussa Amrani3 , Alexander Knapp4 ,
Jeff Gray5
1 University of Côte d’Azur, I3S lab, INRIA Aoste, France
2 University of Montreal, Canada
3 University of Namur, Belgium
4 Universität Augsburg, Germany
5 University of Alabama, USA
Abstract. The fourth edition of the GEMOC workshop was co-located with the
MODELS 2016 conference in Saint-Malo, France. Once again, the workshop
provided an open forum for sharing experiences, problems and solutions related
to the challenges of using multiple modeling languages in the development of
complex software-based systems. During the workshop, both well matured and
preliminary approaches were presented and discussed, ideas and opinions ex-
changed, and constructive feedback provided to authors of accepted papers. A
major objective was to encourage more collaborations and to consolidate the
community that focuses on providing solutions supporting the globalization of
domain-specific modeling languages, i.e., the coordinated use of multiple lan-
guages throughout the development of complex systems. This report summarizes
the presentations and discussions that took place in the 2016 edition of the work-
shop.
1 Introduction
To cope with complexity, modern software-intensive systems are often separated into
different concerns to serve the needs of diverse stakeholders. These different concerns
are often associated with specialized description languages and technologies that are
based on concern-specific problems and solution concepts. Software developers are thus
faced with the challenging task of integrating the different languages and associated
technologies used to produce software artifacts in the different concern spaces.
GEMOC 2016 was a full-day workshop that brought together researchers and prac-
titioners in the modeling languages community to discuss the challenges associated
with integrating multiple, heterogeneous modeling languages. The languages of inter-
est range from requirements to design and runtime languages, and include both general-
purpose and domain-specific languages. Challenges related to engineering composable
languages, well-formed semantic composition of languages and reasoning about sys-
tems described using heterogeneous languages were of particular interest. Following
? This workshop is supported by the GEMOC initiative (http://gemoc.org).
the three previous editions, a major objective was to continue collaborations and to ex-
pand a community that is focused on solving the problems arising from the globaliza-
tion of modeling languages; i.e., the use of multiple domain-specific languages (DSL)
to support coordinated development of diverse aspects of a system.
The GEMOC 2016 workshop was co-located with MODELS 2016 in Saint-Malo,
France, on October 4th, 2016. In this report, we document the various presentations, as
well as the enthusiastic and intense discussions that took place during the workshop.
The workshop report is organized as follows. Section 2 gives a broad overview of the
workshop, including the topics of interest and relevant application domains. Section 3
describes the paper review and selection process, as well as the structure of the work-
shop. Section 4 summarizes the presentations made in the first half of the workshop day.
Section 5 then presents the main points raised in the discussions that followed the pre-
sentations. The intent of the discussions was to discuss specific points, decided by the
workshop participants, related to the globalization of modeling languages. The results
of these discussions are summarized in Section 5. Conclusions are drawn in Section 6.
2 Workshop Overview
Software-intensive systems are becoming more complex, driven by the need to integrate
concerns across multiple domains. Consequently, the development of such systems re-
quires the integration of many different concerns and skills. These concerns are usually
covered by different languages, with specific concepts, technologies and abstraction
levels. This permutation of multiple languages eases the development related to a com-
bination of specific concerns, but raises language and technology integration problems
at the different stages of the software life cycle. In order to reason about the global
system, it becomes necessary to explicitly describe the different kinds of relationships
that exist between the various languages used in the development of a complex system.
To support effective language integration, there is a pressing need to reify and classify
these relationships, as well as the language interactions that the relationships enable.
In this context, the workshop attracted submissions that outline language integra-
tion approaches and case studies that identify and discuss well-defined problems about
the management of relationships between heterogeneous modeling languages. These
presentations catalyzed deep discussions among the participants with the goal of iden-
tifying hot topics of interest for the later discussions.
The Call for Papers explicitly solicited contributions that described a vision for de-
veloping the necessary breakthroughs in software languages to support global software
engineering, i.e., breakthroughs that lead to effective technologies supporting different
forms of language integration, including language collaboration, interoperability and
composability, as well as the related social coordination between developers that use
different languages.
The topics of interest for GEMOC 2016 were:
– Composability and interoperability of heterogeneous modeling languages
– Language integration challenges, from requirement to design, for analysis and sim-
ulation, during runtime, etc.
– Model and metamodel composition
– Language interface, viewpoint
– Heterogeneous modeling and simulation
– Multi-paradigm modeling
– Language-based socio-technical coordination
Submissions describing practical and industrial experience related to the use of het-
erogeneous modeling languages were also encouraged, particularly in the following
application domains:
– Cyber-Physical Systems, System of Systems
– Internet of Services, Internet of Things
– Complex Adaptive Systems
– Smart City, Smart Building, Home automation
3 Workshop Organization
Julien Deantoni, Jeff Gray, and Eugene Syriani organized and chaired the program com-
mittee (PC) for this fourth GEMOC edition. The workshop website6 and the call for
papers (CfP) were online, about 6 months before the workshop date. Apart from the
workshop website, the CfP was announced on different professional mailing lists (e.g.,
SEWORLD, DBWorld, planetmde).
Each submission was reviewed by at least three members of the PC. Papers were se-
lected based on their relevance to the topics for the workshop and the reviews provided
by PC members. The organizers are very grateful to the PC members for performing this
important service to the community and for the quality of their work. The PC consisted
of: Cédric Brun (OBEO, France), Marsha Chechik (University of Toronto, Canada),
Tony Clark (Middlesex University, United Kingdom), Benoit Combemale (INRIA and
University of Rennes 1, France), Jonathan Corley (University West Georgia, USA),
Julien Deantoni (University of Côte d’azur, France (chair)), Jeff Gray (University of Al-
abama, USA (chair)), Jean-Marc Jézéquel (University of Rennes 1, France), Ralf Laem-
mel (Universität Koblenz-Landau, Germany), Marjan Mernik (University of Maribor,
Slovenia), Gunter Mussbacher (McGill University, Canada), Florian Noyrit (CEA List,
France), Richard Paige (University of York, United Kingdom), Bernhard Rumpe (RWTH
Aachen University, Germany), Matthias Schöttle (McGill, Canada), Eugene Syriani
(University of Montreal, Canada) Mark Van Den Brand (Eindhoven University of Tech-
nology, The Netherlands), Hans Vangheluwe (University of Antwerp, Belgium), Eric
Van Wyk (University of Minnesota, USA), and Markus Voelter (Independent, Ger-
many).
The format of the workshop reflected its goals: to provide constructive feedback on
submitted papers and models on the coordinated use of different modeling languages,
and to foster collaborations and community building. The workshop day was split into
three parts. The first part started with a quick introduction about the major achievements
of the GEMOC initiative during the year and was followed by a keynote on “Live Mod-
eling” given by Tijs van der Storm. Then, a session with presentations of the accepted
6 Cf. http://gemoc.org/gemoc2016.
papers took place. The third part of the day was dedicated to open discussions whose
topics were chosen by the workshop participants. We unfortunately did not have enough
time to address all the topics identified as important by the participants. This workshop
report is the result of the beneficial discussions that occurred throughout the workshop.
4 Paper Summaries
The papers and some of the associated talks are available on the workshop website
(http://www.gemoc.org/gemoc2016). Below is a summary of each presented paper.
[1] Embedding Component Behavior DSLs into the MontiArcAutomaton ADL (Arvid
Butting, Bernhard Rumpe and Andreas Wortmann) This paper presents a DSL ded-
icated to the injection of application-specific behaviors (behavioral DSL) into com-
ponent and connector ADLs. This DSL enables language integrators to easily embed
DSLs as required by contributing domain experts. The goal is to provide executability
of the resulting integrated language. The integration relies on the notion of placeholders
that the domain experts have to extend in order to integrate their specific behavior. The
integration is then specified externally and the result is a new language whose syntax
and compilers are integrated according to the explicit specification. The goal of the in-
tegration is to obtain a language equipped with a translation semantics resulting from
the integration of each translational semantics.
[2] Alignment of Viewpoint Heterogeneous Design Models: “Emergency Department”
Case Study (Mahmoud El Hamlaoui, Bernard Coulette, Sophie Ebersold, Saloua Ben-
nani, Mahmoud Nassar, Adil Anwar, Antoine Beugnard, Yassine Jamoussi and Hanh-
Nhi Tran) This paper identifies and considers problems arising when a system is de-
scribed by different heterogeneous multi-views; more precisely, when a consistent rep-
resentation is required across these different views. The authors propose to rely on spe-
cific correspondences between the different views, with the coorespondences stored in
a virtual global model called M1C (Model of correspondences between models), which
conforms to a uniform language based on a MetaModel of Correspondences. The pa-
per highlights, based on a case study, how these correspondences can be used to derive
properties according to the semantics of the correspondence.
[3] Towards Semantic Integration of Plant Behavior Models with AutomationML’s In-
termediate Modeling Layer (Tanja Mayerhofer, Manuel Wimmer, Luca Berardinelli,
Emanuel Mätzler and Nicole Schmidt) This paper is focused on the emerging IEC
standard for storing and exchanging engineering data among the heterogeneous soft-
ware tools involved in the engineering of production systems. The paper explores the
formalization of the standard pivot language in order to later allow the semantically
correct composition of the different behavioral modeling languages currently employed
in the production domain (e.g., Gantt charts, scenarios, impulse diagrams). The formal-
ization of the pivot language is given by a metamodel (to define the syntax) and its
operational semantics (to define its behavioral semantics). The result is implemented in
a tool and several case studies are presented. The pivot language may then be used as
the semantic domain for the composition of heterogeneous plant behavior models.
[4] fSysML: Foundational Executable SysML for Cyber-Physical System Modeling (Omar
Badreddin, Vahdat Abdelzad, Timothy Lethbridge and Maged Elaasar) This paper
presents preliminary work on a language the authors name fSysML. The main con-
tribution is the definition of a textual syntax of SysML together with an extension in-
corporating goal modeling. The paper shows an example of the use of fSysML in the
development of a self-adaptive system from the healthcare domain. Most cyber-physical
systems interact with the physical world (by definition); however, the way it is managed
in fSysML is not detailled in this paper.
[5] A New Approach of Qualitative Simulation for the Validation of Hybrid Systems
(Slim Medimegh, Jean-Yves Pierron, Jean-Pierre Gallois and Frédéric Boulanger) This
paper presents a new approach for the qualitative simulation of hybrid systems, which
relies on an abstract model of the state variables and of the qualitative aspects of their
evolution. Just like abstract interpretation, which provides domains for values instead
of enumerating them, the proposed approach enables abstraction over the derivatives of
the continuous equations instead of solving them. This is an interesting first-step toward
the use of physical models at a (very) high abstraction level, when the lack of precision
about some parameters forbids usual simulations.
5 Discussions
The discussions were split into two parts. The first discussion was dedicated to the
elicitation of topics of importance for the participants. Many topics were proposed,
such as:
– Physical modeling in the globalization process. What are the differences and com-
monalities?
– How to help sociological globalization between different disciplines (e.g., physi-
cists)?
– How experiments (about proper interfaces) should be driven to help understanding
globalization?
– How can the role/nature/purpose of a model impact its interface (extension, refine-
ment, etc). Can the usage of the interface also impact its content?
– What are the potential links between language interfaces and model interfaces?
– Can we use a megamodel to “classify” the correspondances between models?
Given the limited timeframe, we were not able to cover all of these interesting topics
and associated questions. In what follows, we summarize the discussions around some
of these topics.
Notions of Language Interfaces
Most of the discussions were concentrated around the notion of Language Interface.
Participants of the workshop first started to enumerate language interfaces that already
exist in popular heterogeneous modeling approaches like Monticore [6], Modhel’X [7]
or Ptolemy [8], but then the discussion broadened to take into consideration what is
already existing in programming languages and on the web.
Many, if not all, General-Purpose Programming Languages possess the ability to
execute pieces of code written in another language, thus favoring language interaction
during execution. For example, it is possible to call a C procedure (e.g., a driver routine
already written for a particular device) from Java. There is the same kind of approach
in web service-based approaches. This acts like a connector between models written in
various languages, more than a fully-fledged interface. However, this helps in under-
standing that this kind of language interface is dedicated to the co-execution of differ-
ent models written in different languages. The underlying implicit language interface is
very similar to other frameworks dedicated to the same purpose.
For example, Ptolemy, Modhel’X, as well as classical general-purpose connectors
like JNA contain the same key ingredients in their (unfortunately implicit) interface. To
use such connecting capabilities, one needs to know how to
– convert values from the calling language into the callee’s value format, thus con-
forming to the type system of the target language;
– know the proper format / syntax of encapsulated code snippets to be called (be it a
procedure, method, etc.), which is usually referred to as the signature;
– be aware of the behavioral semantics of the languages: e.g., knowing if the method
calls are synchronous or asynchronous, understanding how the notion of time is
considered, or gaining insight into how the concurrency model and other different
parts of the models are scheduled.
This emphasized the fact that the purpose of the language interface is of great impor-
tance for its definition. For instance, the kind of language interface dedicated to model
coordination ([9]) is different from language interfaces dedicated to omniscient debug-
ging ([10]), which is also different from a language interface dedicated to language
composition like in Monticore [6] or Melange [11]. Of course, there is no “one size fits
all”; for instance, the internal observability may vary according to the purpose of the
language and its use by domain experts. There are a variety of language interfaces that
must be classified according to their purpose and may benefit from a clear taxonomy.
At the end of the discussion, two different usages of language interfaces emerged.
On the one hand, there are language interfaces that are exploited at the language level
to understand the “possibilities/characteristics” of the models that conform to these lan-
guages (typically language interfaces dedicated to model co-executions). On the other
hand, there are language interfaces that are used to manipulate the languages them-
selves, both syntactically and semantically (typically language interfaces dedicated to
language composition).
Finally, it was also pointed out that the globalization problem and its impact on
language interfaces may depend on whether the languages were done without the glob-
alization preoccupation in mind (a posteriori globalization) or whether the languages
were developed with the globalization concerns as a core design objective (a priori
globalization).
Differences and Commonalities Between Software Globalization and
Cyber-Physical Globalization
Nowadays, and typically during this workshop, most of the papers focused on the glob-
alization of Software modeling languages. However, there is a need to better communi-
cate between computer scientist and other scientist (e.g., mechanical engineers) to man-
age the globalization of modeling languages in Cyber-Physical Systems. One proposi-
tion made during the workshop was to use a language interface, which enables soci-
ological translucence and from which it would be possible to generate specific views,
dedicated to the discussion between scientists from different domains.
It is clear that, for software languages and for co-execution, it is mandatory to have
a view on the behavioral semantics of the language. An interesting point is that this
is not true for physical models. Usually, what is exposed from physical languages is
more focused on the solver than the semantics of the language. Perhaps this is due
to a homogeneous way of specifying physical behavior using differential equations. If
this is the case, then the heterogeneity comes only from the way of approximating the
equation to provide a simulation. The Functional Mockup Interface (FMI7 ) provides a
simple interface exposing a specific part from the AST of the language (e.g., input and
output variables) and services the underlying solver can provide or be asked to render.
It is not clear from the literature and our recent discussions how this difference
between cyber and physical language interfaces can be better understood/integrated/ex-
ploited to ease the globalization between each other.
6 Conclusions
The fourth edition of the workshop met its goals and thus can be considered a success.
The discussions that took place during the workshop were of very high quality and pro-
vided insights into some of the pressing problems associated with the use of multiple
heterogeneous languages. A key result is the strong participation and involvement of
the attendees. The ongoing research that was reported in the workshop and the discus-
sions that took place are a good indication that the community around these problems
is strengthened. For more information about the GEMOC initiative, please visit the fol-
lowing website: http://gemoc.org.
Acknowledgments
GEMOC 2016 was supported by the GEMOC initiative (cf. http://gemoc.org), which
promotes research that seeks to develop the necessary breakthroughs in software lan-
guages to support global software engineering, i.e., breakthroughs that lead to effec-
tive technologies supporting different forms of language integration, including language
collaboration, interoperability and composability.
We want to thank all of the workshop authors, all members of the program commit-
tee for their reviews, and all participants (new and past participants) who help make the
community active!
7 http://fmi-standard.org/
References
1. Butting, A., Rumpe, B., Wortmann, A.: Embedding Component Behavior DSLs into the
MontiArcAutomaton ADL. In: GEMOC workshop 2016 - International Workshop on The
Globalization of Modeling Languages, Saint Malo, France (2016) http://gemoc.org/
wp-content/uploads/2016/03/GEMOC_2016_paper_1.pdf.
2. El Hamlaoui, M., Coulette, B., Ebersold, S., Bennani, S., Nassar, M., Anwar, A., Beug-
nard, A., Yassine, J., Tran, H.N.: Alignment of viewpoint heterogeneous design mod-
els: “Emergency Department” Case Study. In: GEMOC workshop 2016 - International
Workshop on The Globalization of Modeling Languages, Saint Malo, France (2016) http:
//gemoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/GEMOC_2016_paper_2.pdf.
3. Mayerhofer, T., Wimmer, M., Berardinelli, L., Mätzler, E., Schmidt, N.: Towards Semantic
Integration of Plant Behavior Models with AutomationML’s Intermediate Modeling Layer.
In: GEMOC workshop 2016 - International Workshop on The Globalization of Modeling
Languages, Saint Malo, France (2016) http://gemoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/
03/GEMOC_2016_paper_5.pdf.
4. Badreddin, O., Abdelzad, V., Lethbridge, T., Elaasar, M.: fSysML: Foundational Executable
SysML for Cyber-Physical System Modeling. In: GEMOC workshop 2016 - International
Workshop on The Globalization of Modeling Languages, Saint Malo, France (2016) http:
//gemoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/GEMOC_2016_paper_3.pdf.
5. Medimegh, S., Pierron, J.Y., Gallois, J.P., Boulanger, F.: A New Approach of Qualitative
Simulation for the Validation of Hybrid Systems. In: GEMOC workshop 2016 - International
Workshop on The Globalization of Modeling Languages, Saint Malo, France (2016) http:
//gemoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/GEMOC_2016_paper_4.pdf.
6. Krahn, H., Rumpe, B., Völkel, S.: Monticore: a framework for compositional development
of domain specific languages. International journal on software tools for technology transfer
12(5) (2010) 353–372
7. Hardebolle, C., Boulanger, F.: Modhel’x: A component-oriented approach to multi-
formalism modeling. In: International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages
and Systems, Springer (2007) 247–258
8. Buck, J.T., Ha, S., Lee, E.A., Messerschmitt, D.G.: Ptolemy: A framework for simulating
and prototyping heterogeneous systems. (1994)
9. Vara Larsen, M.E., Deantoni, J., Combemale, B., Mallet, F.: A Behavioral Coordination
Operator Language (BCOoL). In Lethbridge, T., Cabot, J., Egyed, A., eds.: International
Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS). Number 18,
Ottawa, Canada, ACM (September 2015) 462 to be published in the proceedings of the Mod-
els 2015 conference.
10. Bousse, E., Corley, J., Combemale, B., Gray, J., Baudry, B.: Supporting efficient and ad-
vanced omniscient debugging for xdsmls. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGPLAN
International Conference on Software Language Engineering, ACM (2015) 137–148
11. Degueule, T., Combemale, B., Blouin, A., Barais, O., Jézéquel, J.M.: Melange: A meta-
language for modular and reusable development of dsls. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM
SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering, ACM (2015) 25–
36