SEKE 2012 Proceedings - Knowledge Systems Institute

software design, such as decoupling of elements or ease
of maintenance. The final model will, most likely, be very
different from the one created by a person. Yet, apart its
limitations, this is a novel approach to framework use, in
which a transformation method identifies how the framework
can be used by an application. It allows the reuse of framework
knowledge by different people, since once modeled, the framework
can be used by any other person in different projects.
Future work will focus on ways to remove, or at least
reduce, the limitations described above. We also plan to
investigate what impacts the use of more complex planners
may have on the transformed models. Another question that
will need to be addressed in the future is the use of multiple
frameworks. The use of multiple frameworks is common
enough in software development for it not to be ignored,
but it brings its own set of problems [15], such as possible
architectural incompatibilities for instance. Future versions of
this method will seek ways to identify incompatibility between
frameworks, and ideally, ways to circumvent them.
REFERENCES
[1] M. E. Fayad and D. C. Schmidt, “Object-Oriented Application Frameworks,”
Communications of the ACM, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 32–38, 1997.
[2] R. E. Johnson, “Frameworks = Patterns + Components,” Communications
of the ACM, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 39–42, 1997.
[3] K. Czarnecki and S. Helsen, “Classification of model transformation approaches,”
in Proceedings of the 2nd OOPSLA Workshop on Generative
Techniques in the Context of the Model Driven Architecture. Citeseer,
2003, pp. 1–17.
[4] S. Schönberger, R. K. Keller, and I. Khriss, “Algorithmic support
for model transformation in object-oriented software development,”
Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, vol. 13, no. 5,
pp. 351–383, 2001. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpe.
555
[5] D. Varró and Z. Balogh, “Automating model transformation by
example using inductive logic programming,” in Proceedings of the
2007 ACM symposium on Applied computing, ser. SAC ’07. New
York, NY, USA: ACM, 2007, pp. 978–984. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1244002.1244217
[6] G. Engels, R. Hucking, S. Sauer, and A. Wagner, “UML Collaboration
Diagrams and Their Transformation to JAVA,” pp. 473–488, 1999.
[7] T. Behrens and S. Richards, “StateLator - Behavioral Code Generation
as an Instance of a Model Transformation,” in Advanced Information
Systems Engineering, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
B. Wangler and L. Bergman, Eds. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2000,
vol. 1789, pp. 401–416. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
3-540-45140-4\ 27
[8] R. E. Fikes and N. J. Nilsson, “Strips: A new approach to
the application of theorem proving to problem solving,” Artificial
Intelligence, vol. 2, no. 3-4, pp. 189–208, 1971. [Online]. Available:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0004370271900105
[9] A. Tate, “Generating project networks,” in Proceedings of the 5th
international joint conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 2. San
Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1977, pp. 888–
893.
[10] P. Bertoli, M. Pistore, and P. Traverso, “Automated composition of Web
services via planning in asynchronous domains,” Artificial Intelligence,
vol. 174, no. 3-4, pp. 316–361, Mar. 2010. [Online]. Available:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0004370209001489
[11] E. Martínez and Y. Lespérance, “Web service composition as a planning
task: Experiments using knowledge-based planning,” in Proceedings of
the ICAPS-2004 Workshop on Planning and Scheduling for Web and
Grid Services, 2004, pp. 62–69.
[12] D. Berardi, D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, M. Lenzerini, and M. Mecella,
“Automatic service composition based on behavioral descriptions,”
International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, vol. 14, no. 4,
pp. 333–376, 2005.
[13] G. Caldiera and V. R. Basili, “Identifying and qualifying reusable
software components,” Computer, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 61–70, 1991.
[14] F. Parisi-Presicce, “A rule-based approach to modular system design,”
in Software Engineering, 1990. Proceedings., 12th International Conference
on, Mar. 1990, pp. 202–211.
[15] D. Garlan, R. Allen, and J. Ockerbloom, “Architectural Mismatch: Why
Reuse Is Still So Hard,” Software, IEEE, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 66–69, 2009.
569