EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ulyana Tikhonova
dblp:133/8144
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 4 · 4 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Programming languages and type systems · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Programming languages and type systems
domain-specific languages |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | A framework for defining the dynamic semantics of DSLs · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2013 |
Programming languages and type systems › language semantics
dynamic semantics |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | A framework for defining the dynamic semantics of DSLs · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2013 |
Programming languages and type systems
language design |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | A framework for defining the dynamic semantics of DSLs · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2013 |
Programming languages and type systems
language semantics |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | A framework for defining the dynamic semantics of DSLs · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2013 |
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | Reusable specification templates for defining dynamic semantics of DSLsabstractIn the context of model-driven engineering, the dynamic (execution) semantics of domain-specific languages (DSLs) is usually not specified explicitly and stays (hard)coded in model transformations and code generation. This poses challenges such as learning, debugging, understanding, maintaining, and updating a DSL. Facing the lack of supporting tools for specifying the dynamic semantics of DSLs (or programming languages in general), we propose to specify the architecture and the detailed design of the software that implements the DSL, rather than requirements for the behavior expected from DSL programs. To compose such a specification, we use specification templates that capture software design solutions typical for the (application) domain of the DSL. As a result, on the one hand, our approach allows for an explicit and clear definition of the dynamic semantics of a DSL, supports separation of concerns and reuse of typical design solutions. On the other hand, we do not introduce (yet another) specification formalism, but we base our approach on an existing formalism and apply its extensive tool support for verification and validation to the dynamic semantics of a DSL. Ulyana Tikhonova |
Softw. Syst. Model. | 1 |
| 2018 | Constraint-based run-time state migration for live modelingabstractLive modeling enables modelers to incrementally update models as they are running and get immediate feedback about the impact of their changes. Changes introduced in a model may trigger inconsistencies between the model and its run-time state (e.g., deleting the current state in a statemachine); effectively requiring to migrate the run-time state to comply with the updated model. In this paper, we introduce an approach that enables to automatically migrate such run-time state based on declarative constraints defined by the language designer. We illustrate the approach using Nextep, a meta-modeling language for defining invariants and migration constraints on run-time state models. When a model changes, Nextep employs model finding techniques, backed by a solver, to automatically infer a new run-time model that satisfies the declared constraints. We apply Nextep to define migration strategies for two DSLs, and report on its expressiveness and performance. Ulyana Tikhonova, Jouke Stoel, Tijs van der Storm, Thomas Degueule |
SLE | 1 |
| 2017 | Reusable Specification Templates for Defining Dynamic Semantics of DSLsabstractIn the context of Model Driven Engineering (MDE), the dynamic (execution) semantics of domain specific languages (DSLs) is usually not specified explicitly and stays (hard)coded in model transformations and code generation. This poses challenges such as learning, debugging, understanding, maintaining, and updating a DSL. Facing the lack of supporting tools for specifying the dynamic semantics of DSLs (or programming languages in general), we propose to specify the architecture and the detailed design of the software that implements the DSL, rather than requirements for the behavior expected from DSL programs. To compose such a specification we use specification templates that capture software design solutions typical for the (application) domain of the DSL. As a result, on the one hand, our approach allows for an explicit and clear definition of the dynamic semantics of a DSL, supports separation of concerns and reuse of typical design solutions. On the other hand, we do not introduce (yet another) specification formalism, but we base our approach on an existing formalism and apply its extensive tool support for verification and validation to the dynamic semantics of a DSL. Ulyana Tikhonova |
MoDELS | 1 |
| 2013 | A framework for defining the dynamic semantics of DSLsabstractIn this research abstract we describe our project on a common reference framework for defining domain specific languages (DSLs). The framework is meant for defining the dynamic semantics of DSLs and allows for mapping the DSL definition to the various platforms, such as verification, validation and simulation. The objectives of the project are to make a DSL dynamic semantics definition explicit and to use this definition for bridging technological diversity of various platforms, used in the DSLs development. Ulyana Tikhonova |
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE | 1 |