<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-08-10T01:52:50Z</responseDate>
  <request identifier="24" metadataPrefix="oai_dc" verb="GetRecord">https://drops.dagstuhl.de/oai</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <record>
      <header>
        <identifier>oai:drops-oai.dagstuhl.de:24</identifier>
        <datestamp>2024-03-06T11:05:45Z</datestamp>
        <setSpec>ddc:004</setSpec>
        <setSpec>open_access</setSpec>
      </header>
      <metadata>
        <oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
          <dc:title>Subjects, Models, Languages, Transformations</dc:title>
          <dc:creator>Rensink, Arend</dc:creator>
          <dc:subject>no keywords</dc:subject>
          <dc:description>Discussions about model-driven approaches tend to be hampered&#13;
by terminological confusion. This is at least partially caused by&#13;
a lack of formal precision in defining the basic concepts, including that&#13;
of \model" and \thing being modelled" | which we call subject in this&#13;
paper. We propose a minimal criterion that a model should fulfill: essentially,&#13;
it should come equipped with a clear and unambiguous membership&#13;
test; in other words, a notion of which subjects it models. We then go&#13;
on to discuss a certain class of models of models that we call languages,&#13;
which apart from defining their own membership test also determine&#13;
membership of their members. Finally, we introduce transformations on&#13;
each of these layers: a subject transformation is essentially a pair of subjects,&#13;
a model transformation is both a pair of models and a model of&#13;
pairs (namely, subject transformations), and a language transformation&#13;
is both a pair of languages and a language of model transformations.&#13;
We argue that our framework has the benefits of formal precision (there&#13;
can be no doubt about whether something satifies our criteria for being&#13;
a model, a language or a transformation) and minimality (it is hard to&#13;
imagine a case of modelling or transformation not having the characterstics&#13;
that we propose).</dc:description>
          <dc:publisher>Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik</dc:publisher>
          <dc:contributor>Arend Rensink</dc:contributor>
          <dc:date>2005</dc:date>
          <dc:relation>Is Part Of Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 4101, Language Engineering for Model-Driven Software Development (2005)</dc:relation>
          <dc:type>InProceedings</dc:type>
          <dc:type>Text</dc:type>
          <dc:type>doc-type:ResearchArticle</dc:type>
          <dc:type>publishedVersion</dc:type>
          <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
          <dc:identifier>doi:10.4230/DagSemProc.04101.14</dc:identifier>
          <dc:identifier>urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-242</dc:identifier>
          <dc:identifier>https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/DagSemProc.04101.14</dc:identifier>
          <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
          <dc:rights>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode</dc:rights>
        </oai_dc:dc>
      </metadata>
    </record>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
