Korpusdokumentation wird in dieser Arbeit als eine Voraussetzung für die Wiederverwendung von Korpora und als ein Bestandteil des Forschungsdatenmanagements verstanden, welches unter anderem die Veröffentlichung und Archivierung von Korpora umfasst. Verschiedene Forschungsdaten stellen ganz unterschiedliche Anforderungen an die Dokumentation und können auch unterschiedlich wiederverwendet werden. Ein geeignetes Anwendungsbeispiel stellen historische Textkorpora dar, da sie in vielen Fächern als empirische Grundlage für die Forschung genutzt werden können. Sie zeichnen sich im Weiteren durch vielfältige Unterschiede in ihrer Aufbereitung und durch ein komplexes Verhältnis zu der historischen Vorlage aus. Die Ergebnisse von Transkription und Normalisierung müssen als eigenständige Repräsentationen und Interpretationen im Vergleich zur Vorlage verstanden werden. Was müssen Forscherinnen und Forscher über ihr Korpus mit Hilfe von Metadaten dokumentieren, um dessen Erschließung und Wiederverwendung für andere Forscherinnen und Forscher zu ermöglichen? Welche Funktionen übernehmen dabei die Metadaten? Wie können Metadaten modelliert werden, um auf alle Arten von historischen Korpora angewendet werden zu können? Die Arbeit und ihre Fragestellung sind fest in einem interdisziplinären Kontext verortet. Für die Beantwortung der Forschungsfragen wurden Erkenntnisse und Methoden aus den Fachbereichen der Korpuslinguistik, der historischen Linguistik, der Informationswissenschaft sowie der Informatik theoretisch und empirisch betrachtet und für die Entwicklung eines Metamodells für Korpusmetadaten fruchtbar gemacht. Das im Rahmen dieser Arbeit in UML entwickelte Metamodell für Korpusmetadaten modelliert Metadaten von historischen textbasierten Korpora aus einer technisch-abstrakten, produktorientierten und überfachlichen Perspektive und ist in einer TEI-Spezifikation mit Hilfe der TEI-eigenen Modellierungssprache ODD realisiert. / Corpus documentation is a requirement for enabling corpus reuse scenarios and is a part of research data management which covers, among others, data publication and archiving. Different types of research data make differing demands on corpus documentation, and may be reused in various ways. Historical corpora represent an interesting and challenging use case because they are the foundation for empirical studies in many disciplines and show a great variety of reuse possibilities, of data creation, and of data annotation. Furthermore, the relation between the historical corpus and the historical original is complex. The transcription and normalisation of historical texts must be understood as independent representations and interpretations in their own right. Which kind of metadata information, then, must be included in a corpus documentation in order to enable intellectual access and reuse scenarios? What kind of role do metadata play? How can metadata be designed to be applicable to all types of historical corpora? These research questions can only be addressed with help of an interdisciplinary approach, considering findings and methods of corpus linguistics, historical linguistics, information science and computer science. The metamodel developed in this thesis models metadata of historical text-based corpora from a technical, abstract, and interdisciplinary point of view with help of UML. It is realised as a TEI-specification using the modelling language ODD.

Metamodellierung im Sinne der Meta Object Facility (MOF) stellt eine Methode für die strukturelle Definition der abstrakten Syntax von Modellierungssprachen und Modellen im Softwareentwicklungsprozess dar. Um Modellsimulation und dynamische Analysen für metamodellbasierte Sprachen zu unterstützen, fehlt es an einem Kalkül zur operationalen Semantik. In dieser Arbeit wird ausgehend von MOF die Aktionssemantik MActions entwickelt, die die Definition von operationaler Semantik als Verhalten in Metamodellen ermöglicht. Diese Erweiterung geht einher mit der Beschreibung von Laufzeitmodellen sowie Zuständen und Parallelitätseigenschaften, so dass eine Verifikation von dynamischen Eigenschaften möglich wird. Zu diesem Zweck wird mit der Linear Temporal Object Constraint Language (LT-OCL) exemplarisch eine prädikatenlogische Temporallogik entwickelt, die eine metamodellunabhängige Analyse für ausführbare Modelle erlaubt. Dabei ist die Semantik von temporalen Ausdrücken über Zuständsänderungen von (aufgezeichneten) Ausführungsläufen beschrieben, wobei eine Linearisierung parallele Änderungen zusammenführt. Als weiteren Anwendungsfall der dynamischen Analyse untersuchen wir die Relation zum Verhaltensvergleich im Sinne der Bisimulationstheorie. Metamodelle, Aktionssemantik und Temporallogik werden mittels einer erweiterten Abstract State Machine (ASM) formal beschrieben und kommen in zwei Fallstudien zur Anwendung (Timed Automata und C#). / Object-oriented metamodelling as defined by the Meta Object Facility (MOF) provide a means to describe the structure of models and the abstract syntax of modelling languages at various stages in a software development process. However, MOF lacks concepts for the definition of operational semantics and there is no support for dynamic model analysis based on the semantics and abstract states of a language definition. This thesis investigates on extending the metamodelling framework with an action semantics - the MActions - to support the definition of operational semantics in metamodels and enable simulation as well as verification of dynamic properties. For this purpose, runtime models are incorporated with semantics for states, time, and properties of parallelism that allow a generic analysis solely bound to a certain metamodel definition. Furthermore, we develop the Linear Temporal Object Constraint Language (LT-OCL) to perform a dynamic analysis of execution runs based on the executable models. The semantics of this temporal predicate logic is bound to state changes of (recorded) execution traces that are linearizations of parallel changes of the runtimes model. This establishes the link to the theory of bisimulation as a second application case of dynamic analysis. Abstract State Machines (ASM) have been used to formally define the action language in conjunction with metamodels and the temporal logic. As proof of concept of the whole approach, the framework has been implemented and applied to two languages as case studies (namely Timed Automata and C#).

The benefits of Model-Driven Software Development (MDSD) and Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs) wrt. efficiency and quality in software engineering increase the demand for custom languages and the need for efficient methods for language engineering. This motivated the introduction of language families that aim at further reducing the development costs and the maintenance effort for custom languages. The basic idea is to exploit the commonalities and provide means to enable systematic variation among a set of related languages. Current techniques and methodologies for language engineering are not prepared to deal with the particular challenges of language families. First, language engineering processes lack means for a systematic analysis, specification and management of variability as found in language families. Second, technical approaches for a modular specification and realisation of languages suffer from insufficient modularity properties. They lack means for information hiding, for explicit module interfaces, for loose coupling, and for flexible module integration. Our first contribution, Feature-Oriented Language Family Engineering (LFE), adapts methods from Software Product Line Engineering to the domain of language engineering. It extends Feature-Oriented Software Development to support metamodelling approaches used for language engineering and replaces state-of-the-art processes by a variability- and reuse-oriented LFE process. Feature-oriented techniques are used as means for systematic variability analysis, variability management, language variant specification, and the automatic derivation of custom language variants. Our second contribution, Integrative Role-Based Language Composition, extends existing metamodelling approaches with roles. Role models introduce enhanced modularity for object-oriented specifications like abstract syntax metamodels. We introduce a role-based language for the specification of language components, a role-based composition language, and an extensible composition system to evaluate role-based language composition programs. The composition system introduces integrative, grey-box composition techniques for language syntax and semantics that realise the statics and dynamics of role composition, respectively. To evaluate the introduced approaches and to show their applicability, we apply them in three major case studies. First, we use feature-oriented LFE to implement a language family for the ontology language OWL. Second, we employ role-based language composition to realise a component-based version of the language OCL. Third, we apply both approaches in combination for the development of SumUp, a family of languages for mathematical equations.

The benefits of Model-Driven Software Development (MDSD) and Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs) wrt. efficiency and quality in software engineering increase the demand for custom languages and the need for efficient methods for language engineering. This motivated the introduction of language families that aim at further reducing the development costs and the maintenance effort for custom languages. The basic idea is to exploit the commonalities and provide means to enable systematic variation among a set of related languages. Current techniques and methodologies for language engineering are not prepared to deal with the particular challenges of language families. First, language engineering processes lack means for a systematic analysis, specification and management of variability as found in language families. Second, technical approaches for a modular specification and realisation of languages suffer from insufficient modularity properties. They lack means for information hiding, for explicit module interfaces, for loose coupling, and for flexible module integration. Our first contribution, Feature-Oriented Language Family Engineering (LFE), adapts methods from Software Product Line Engineering to the domain of language engineering. It extends Feature-Oriented Software Development to support metamodelling approaches used for language engineering and replaces state-of-the-art processes by a variability- and reuse-oriented LFE process. Feature-oriented techniques are used as means for systematic variability analysis, variability management, language variant specification, and the automatic derivation of custom language variants. Our second contribution, Integrative Role-Based Language Composition, extends existing metamodelling approaches with roles. Role models introduce enhanced modularity for object-oriented specifications like abstract syntax metamodels. We introduce a role-based language for the specification of language components, a role-based composition language, and an extensible composition system to evaluate role-based language composition programs. The composition system introduces integrative, grey-box composition techniques for language syntax and semantics that realise the statics and dynamics of role composition, respectively. To evaluate the introduced approaches and to show their applicability, we apply them in three major case studies. First, we use feature-oriented LFE to implement a language family for the ontology language OWL. Second, we employ role-based language composition to realise a component-based version of the language OCL. Third, we apply both approaches in combination for the development of SumUp, a family of languages for mathematical equations.:1. Introduction 1.1. The Omnipresence of Language Families 1.2. Challenges for Language Family Engineering 1.3. Language Family Engineering with Features and Role-Based Composition 2. Review of Current Language Engineering 2.1. Language Engineering Processes 2.1.1. Analysis Phase 2.1.2. Design Phase 2.1.3. Implementation Phase 2.1.4. Applicability in Language Family Engineering 2.1.5. Requirements for an Enhanced LFE Process 2.2. Technical Approaches in Language Engineering 2.2.1. Specification of Abstract Syntax 2.2.2. Specification of Concrete Syntax 2.2.3. Specification of Semantics 2.2.4. Requirements for an Enhanced LFE Technique 3. Feature-Oriented Language Family Engineering 3.1. Foundations of Feature-Oriented SPLE 3.1.1. Introduction to SPLE 3.1.2. Feature-Oriented Software Development 3.2. Feature-Oriented Language Family Engineering 3.2.1. Variability and Variant Specification in LFE 3.2.2. Product-Line Realisation, Mapping and Variant Derivation for LFE 3.3. Case Study: Scalability in Ontology Specification, Evaluation and Application 3.3.1. Review of Evolution, Customisation and Combination in the OWL LanguageFamily 3.3.2. Application of Feature-Oriented Language Family Engineering for OWL 3.4. Discussion 3.4.1. Contributions 3.4.2. Related Work. 3.4.3. Conclusion 4. Integrative, Role-Based Composition for Language Family Engineering 4.1. Foundations of Role-Based Modelling. 4.1.1. Information Hiding and Interface Specification in Role Models 4.1.2. Loose Coupling and Flexible Integration in Role Composition 4.2. The LanGems Language Composition System 4.2.1. The Language Component Specification Language . 4.2.2. TheLanguageCompositionLanguage 4.2.3. TechniquesofLanguageComposition 4.3. Case Study: Component-based OCL 4.3.1. Role-Based OCL Modularisation 4.3.2. Role-Based OCL Composition 4.4. Discussion 4.4.1. Contributions 4.4.2. Related Work 4.4.3. Conclusion 5. LFE with Integrative, Role-Based Syntax and Semantics Composition 5.1. Integrating Features and Roles 5.2. SumUp Case Study 5.2.1. Motivation 5.2.2. Feature-Oriented Variability and Variant Specification 5.2.3. Role-Based Component Realisation 5.2.4. Feature-Oriented Variability and Variant Evolution 5.2.5. Model-driven Concrete Syntax Realisation 5.2.6. Model-driven Semantics Realisation 5.2.7. Role-Based Composition and Feature Mapping 5.2.8. Language Variant Derivation 5.3. Conclusion 6. Conclusion 6.1. Contributions 6.2. Outlook 6.2.1. Co-Evolution in Language Families 6.2.2. Role-Based Tool Integration. 6.2.3. Automatic Modularisation of Existing Language Families 6.2.4. Language Component Library Appendix A Appendix B Bibliography