Electronic Communications of the EASST Volume 24 (2009) Proceedings of the Workshop The Pragmatics of OCL and Other Textual Specification Languages at MoDELS 2009 Preface 2 pages Guest Editors: J. Cabot, J. Chimiak-Opoka, F. Jouault, M. Gogolla, A. Knapp Managing Editors: Tiziana Margaria, Julia Padberg, Gabriele Taentzer ECEASST Home Page: http://www.easst.org/eceasst/ ISSN 1863-2122 http://www.easst.org/eceasst/ ECEASST Preface Jordi Cabot, Joanna Chimiak–Opoka, Martin Gogolla, Frédéric Jouault, Alexander Knapp In recent years, model-driven methodologies, approaches and languages (like QVT) emphasized the role that OCL has to play in all kinds of model-based software development. Now, OCL is being used for quite different purposes (e.g., model verification and validation, code gen- eration, test–driven development, transformations) and application domains (domain–specific languages, web semantics). Successfully adapting OCL to all these different scenarios requires strong research on alternative notations/representations for OCL that simplify its application, improvements and clarifications on its semantics, modular language extensions, new evaluation techniques, mappings from OCL to other languages and formalisms and of course, the tools that will make all of this possible among many other relevant aspects. The papers presented in the workshop covered many of these interesting topics. All submitted papers were reviewed by three industrial or academic members from the Program Committee: • Thomas Baar, Tech@Spree, Germany • Achim Brucker, SAP, Germany • Manuel Clavel, IMDEA Software Institute, Spain • Dan Chiorean, University of Cluj, Romania • Tony Clark, Thames Valley University, UK • Birgit Demuth, Technical University of Dresden, Germany • Remco Dijkman, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands • Robert France, University of Fort Collins, USA • Heinrich Hußmann, University of Munich, Germany • Tihamer Levendovszky, Vanderbilt University, USA • Richard Mitchell, Inferdata, UK • Richard Paige, University of York, UK • Mark Richters, Astrium Space Transportation, Germany • Shane Sendall, IBM, Switzerland • Pieter Van Gorp, University of Eindhoven, The Netherlands 1 / 2 Volume 24 (2009) Preface • Burkhart Wolff, LRI, University Paris–Sud, France • Steffen Zschaler, Lancaster University, UK During the workshop a broad spectrum of topics was discussed: syntax, semantics and pragmat- ics of the language, using formal or lightweight approaches, discussing core OCL aspects or its application in different domains and presented by a mixture of academic and industrial partici- pants. Several papers pointed out semantic inconsistencies with the current standard specification of the language and presented concrete solutions to those problems. This triggered a very interesting discussion on the OCL standardization process and on how the OCL workshop community could have a more tight cooperation with the standardization committee to increase the desired community–driven character of the OCL language and thus improve quality of the OCL specification by opening a communication channel to easily report on the issues and improvements discussed during the workshop. A second set of papers showed once again the broad application scenarios of OCL (this was also observed in other workshops and the main conference). Papers in the workshop presented the use of OCL as constraint or query language and at the user model or metamodel levels (either in the context of MOF, or as part of domain specific languages) and its usefulness as part of testing activities, model transformations and business process modelling. This lead to a long discussion regarding tool support for OCL, a key aspect in all application scenarios. In this context, an initiative for a community–driven specification and development of a new user–friendly OCL tool was presented. As part of discussion, attendees were asked to fill in questionnaires regarding the most important features a user–friendly OCL tool should have. Everybody agreed on the importance of such initiative and was eager to propose new features for the tool to-do list (or better said wish list). Architectural aspects and possible strategies for a collaborative-building effort of such a tool were also discussed. Jordi Cabot, Joanna Chimiak–Opoka, Martin Gogolla, Frédéric Jouault, Alexander Knapp December 2009 Proc. OCL 2009 2 / 2