1. “Shiny New Languages” for AOM?
Jeff Gray
MODELS 2007 Panel
The Future of Aspect Modeling: Will MDE Absorb it?

2. Robert Floyd – “The Paradigms of Programming*”
“To the designer of modeling languages, I say: Unless you can support the paradigms I use when I model, or at least support my extending your language into one that does support my modeling methods, I don’t need your shiny new languages… To persuade me of the merit of your language, you must show me how to construct models in it.”
1978 Turing Award Lecture
*Original focus on programming; quote modified to modeling.

3. Case Study: Solved with Aspect-Oriented Modeling Crosscutting Constraints in Real-Time/Embedded Models
IEEE Computer,
February 2006
Mention ESML
Mention Jing/Jane

4. “Doesn’t it just involve a specific kind of modeling?”
Elaborationists versus Translationists*
Some view AOM as just a bunch of notations with little or no tool support
AOM as a noun
Often interested in traceability concerns to code
Opinion: Majority view
Others view AOM as a means toward improving the modeling process itself, with model weavers integrated into a modeling tool
View aspect modeling as a form of model transformation
AOM as a verb
Opinion: Offers best opportunities for AOM
different meanings to the term
*A summary of these views is presented in (Cottenier et al., MODELS AOM Workshop, 2006).

5. Current AOM Focus Tilted toward General-Purpose Languages
After 6 years and 11 AOM Workshops
Growth (depth) and application (breadth) unimpressive
Most papers describe a general-purpose aspect language for a general-purpose modeling language
Number of papers specific to UML and general-purpose descriptions at last four AOM workshops
2006-AOSD: of 8
2006-MODELS: 7 of 10
2007-AOSD: of 8
2007-MODELS: 6 of 7
See:

6. Expanding the purview of AOM
Domain-Specific
General-Purpose
Aspect Modeling Language
DSAML
GPAML
Base Modeling Language
DSML
GPML
At the code level, DSALs are gaining more interest (original focus of AOP)
Very little investigation into the combinations of {DSAL, GPAL}x{DSML, GPML} at modeling level
Are there benefits in expanding the general-purpose view at both levels?

7. “Does it just involve a special kind of model transformation?”
Consider a view that treats a transformation language/engine as “machine code” to realize higher level concern transformation in a separate language
At the code level:
AOP
FOP …
Higher level
Descriptions
Code Refactoring Browser
Concern Translator
AO purists would disagree with this general characterization
PT/MT language not meant for end-users; MT and PT engines serve as the “machine language” of the adaptations needed to realize some concern
Program Transformation Engine
(e.g., DMS, ASF+SDF, TXL)
Lower level
Mechanisms

8. “Does it just involve a special kind of model transformation?”
At the modeling level:
AOM
FOM …
Higher level
Descriptions
Model Refactoring Browser
Model Compositor
Model Transformation Engine
(e.g., ATL, VIATRA2, C-SAW,
GReAT, ATOM3)
Lower level
Mechanisms
Some observations:
AOM is a type of MT, but most end-users would not want to use a MT engine directly
Layering an aspect modeling language on top of an MT engine provides an opportunity for improved abstraction in the intent of the aspect description

9. “Will MDE absorb AOSD in the end?”
May depend on which camp you live in
Elaborationist/Translationist
Robert Floyd’s Plea
Extensions to incorporate desired paradigms
If you believe “Everything is a Model”
No need for aspects and weavers at the code level - code generation from the model can generate all crosscutting concerns; i.e., aspect weaver built into codegen