Skip to main content

Domain-Specific Languages and Standardization: Friends or Foes?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Domain Engineering

Abstract

Domain-specific languages (DSLs) capture the domain knowledge through the constructs of the language, but making a good language takes more than combining a set of domain concepts in some random fashion. Creating a good language requires knowledge not only from the domain but also from the domain of language design. Generic abstraction concepts turn out to be useful for many different domains and thus for DSLs. In this chapter we discuss how DSLs can benefit from standardized generic languages to cope with abstraction needs. A successful combination will keep the DSL simple and its implementation maintainable while the generic language will add expressiveness and structuring means. We give examples of DSLs as well as general ones and use the examples to illustrate our advice on how to make a good language. We share experiences of language evolution and finally show an example of combining a generic language for variability with a DSL for train signaling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    www.omg.org

  2. 2.

    http://www.omgwiki.org/model-interchange/doku.php

  3. 3.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/worldwide-market-share-smartphones-220747882--finance.html

  4. 4.

    http://mosis.reflector.os4os.org/modules/wikimod/

  5. 5.

    MSC Instance corresponds to UML Lifeline

  6. 6.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAST-ADL

References

  1. Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., Rouncefield, M., Kristoffersen, S.: Empirical assessment of MDE in industry. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 471–480. ACM, Waikiki, Honolulu (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Conference on Data Systems, L. COBOL – 61: report to Conference on Data Systems Languages, including extended specifications for a common business oriented language (COBOL) for programming electronic digital computers. In: Conference on Data Systems Languages Maintenance Committee. Department of Defense, Washington (1962)

    Google Scholar 

  3. ANSI: USA Standard FORTRAN: Approved March 7, 1966, p. 36. American Standards Association, New York (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Weissman, C.: LISP 1.5 Primer. Dickenson Publishing Company, Inc., Belmont (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Birtwistle, G.M., Dahl, O.-J., Myhrhaug, B., Nygaard, K.: SIMULA BEGIN. Petrocelli/Charter, New York (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, pp. XVII, 550s. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kelly, S., Tolvanen, J.-P.: Domain-Specific Modeling: Enabling Full Code Generation, pp. XVI, 427. Wiley, Hoboken (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  8. ITU: Z.100. In: Faergemand, O. (ed.) ITU Specification and Description Language (SDL), p. 237. ITU-T, Geneva (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  9. OMG: Unified Modeling Language 2.0. OMG, Needham (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Greenfield, J., Short, K.: Software Factories, p. 666. Wiley, Indianapolis (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Haugen, Ø., Bræk, R., Melby, G.: The SISU project. In: Proceedings of the Sixth SDL Forum, SDL ‘93 Using Objects. North Holland, Darmstadt (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  12. ITU: Z.120. In: Rudolph, E. (ed.) Message Sequence Charts (MSC), p. 78. ITU-T, Geneva (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bræk, R., Haugen, Ø.: Engineering Real Time Systems. In: Welland, R. (ed.) BCS Practitioner Series, p. 398. Prentice Hall International, Hemel Hempstead (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hauge, T., Haugen, Ø.: OST—an object-oriented SDL Tool. In: Forth SDL Forum. Lisbon, Portugal (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fowler, M.: UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language, pp. XXX, 175. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Broy, M., Cengarle, M.: UML formal semantics: lessons learned. Softw. Syst. Model. 10(4), 441–446 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. ITU: Z.100 Annex F. In: Olsen, A. (ed.) Specification and Description Language (SDL) Annex F. SDL Formal Definition, pp. (33+437+183). ITU, Geneva (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gosling, J., Joy, B., Steele, G.: The Java Language Specification. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mohagheghi, P., Haugen, Ø.: Evaluating domain-specific modelling solutions. In: Trujillo, J., et al. (eds.) Advances in Conceptual Modeling—Applications and Challenges, pp. 212–221. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Endresen, J., Carlson, E., Moen, T., Alme, K-J., Haugen, Ø., Olsen, G.K., Svendsen, A.: Train control language—teaching computers interlocking. In: Allan, J., Arias, E., Brebbia, C.A., Goodman, C., Rumsey, A.F., Sciutto, G., Tomii, N. (eds.) Computers in Railways XI (COMPRAIL). WIT, Toledo (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Svendsen, A., Møller-Pedersen, B., Haugen, Ø., Endresen, J., Carlson, E.: Formalizing train control language: automating analysis of train stations. In: Ning, B., Brebbia, C.A., Tomii, N. (eds.) Comprail 2010. WIT, Beijing (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Svendsen, A., Olsen, GK., Endresen, J., Moen, T., Carlson, E., Alme, K-J., Haugen, Ø.: The future of train signaling. In: MODELS2008. Springer, Toulouse (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Eclipse Modeling Framework Project (EMF). http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/. Accessed 25 Apr 2012

  24. Eclipse Graphical Modeling Framework (GMF). http://wiki.eclipse.org/GMF_Documentation (2009). Accessed 25 Apr 2013

  25. Oldevik, J.: MOFScript eclipse plug-in: metamodel-based code generation. In: Eclipse Technology Workshop (EtX) at ECOOP. Nantes (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  26. ITU: Z.120. In: Rudolph, E. (ed.) Message Sequence Charts (MSC), p. 36. ITU-T, Geneva (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  27. ITU: Z.120. In: Haugen, O. (ed.) Message Sequence Charts (MSC), p. 126. ITU-T, Geneva (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Grabowski, J., Rudolph, E.: Putting extended sequence charts to practice. In: SDL ‘89—The Language at Work. SDL Forum 1989. North-Holland, Lisbon (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Haugen, Ø.: MSC-2000 interaction diagrams for the new millennium. Comput. Netw. 35, 721–732 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Haugen, O.: Comparing UML 2.0 Interactions and MSC-2000. In: SAM 2004: SDL and MSC Fourth International Workshop. Springer, Ottawa (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Zamenhof, L.L.: Tipo-Litographiya H. Keltera. Unua Libro, Warsaw (1887)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Perrouin, G., Vanwormhoudt, G., Morin, B., Lahire, P., Barais, O., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Weaving variability into domain metamodels. Softw. Syst. Model. 11(3), 361–383 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.: Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications, p. 864. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Fleurey, F., Haugen, Ø., Møller-Pedersen, B., Svendsen, A., Zhang, X.: Standardizing variability—challenges and solutions. In: Ober, I., Ober, I. (eds.) SDL 2011: Integrating System and Software Modeling, pp. 233–246. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  35. OMG: Request for Proposal. Common Variability Language. Object Management Group, Needham (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., Peterson, A.: Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  37. OMG: SysML-OMG Systems Modeling Language. OMG, Needham (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  38. OMG: Query/View/Transformation, v1.1. OMG, Needham (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Zhang, X., Haugen, O., Moller-Pedersen, B.: Model Comparison to Synthesize a Model-Driven Software Product Line. In: 15th International Conference on Software Product Line Conference (SPLC), Munich, 2011

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Øystein Haugen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Haugen, Ø. (2013). Domain-Specific Languages and Standardization: Friends or Foes?. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Sturm, A., Clark, T., Cohen, S., Bettin, J. (eds) Domain Engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36654-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36654-3_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-36653-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-36654-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics