An automatic model-to-model mapping and transformation methodology to serve model-based systems engineering

  • Tiexin Wang
  • Sebastien Truptil
  • Frederick Benaben
Original Article


With enterprise collaboration becoming increasingly frequent, the ability of an enterprise to cooperate with others has become one of the core factors in gaining competitive advantage. This trend has led to an urgent requirement to improve cooperation ability. To this end, model-based systems engineering is being adapted so that it can be used to represent and simulate the working processes of enterprises. Model-to-model mappings and transformations, as important aspects in model-based systems engineering, have become two of the key factors in improving the cooperation capabilities of enterprises. However, the foundations for achieving automatic model-to-model transformation have not yet been built. Normally, model transformation rules are built on the basis of model mappings, and model mappings concern semantic or syntactic representations. One of the difficulties in achieving model-to-model mappings and transformations lies in detecting the semantics and semantic relations that are conveyed in different models. This paper presents an automatic model-to-model mapping and transformation methodology, which applies semantic and syntactic checking measurements to detect the meanings and relations between different models automatically. Both of the semantic and syntactic checking measurements are combined into a refined meta-model based model transformation process. To evaluate the performance of this methodology, we demonstrate its applicability with a realistic example.


Enterprise collaboration Model-driven engineering Model-to-model mappings Automatic model-to-model transformation Semantic and syntactic checking 


  1. Abril D, Navarro-Arribas G, Torra V (2012) Choquet integral for record linkage. Ann Oper Res 195(1):97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benaben F, Touzi J, Rajsiri V, Pingaud H (2006) Collaborative information system design. In: AIM conference, pp 281–296Google Scholar
  3. Benaben F, Lauras M, Truptil S et al (2012) Mise 3.0: an agile support for collaborative situation. In: Camarinha-Matos LM, Xu L, Afsarmanesh H (eds) Collaborative networks in the internet of services. Springer, Berlin, pp 645–654Google Scholar
  4. Benaben F, Mu W, Boissel-Dallier N, Barthe-Delanoe A-M, Zribi S, Pingaud H (2015) Supporting interoperability of collaborative networks through engineering of a service-based mediation information system (MISE 2.0). Enterp Inf Syst 9(5–6):556–582Google Scholar
  5. Bénaben F, Mu W, Truptil S et al (2010) Information systems design for emerging ecosystems. In: 2010 4th IEEE international conference on digital ecosystems and technologies (DEST). IEEE, pp 310–315Google Scholar
  6. Bezivin J (2006) Model driven engineering: an emerging technical space. In: Lämmel R, Saraiva J, Visser J (eds) Generative and transformational techniques in software engineering, International Summer School, GTTSE 2005, Braga, Portugal, July 4–8, 2005. Revised Papers, Part I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4143. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 36–64. doi: 10.1007/11877028_2
  7. Boissel-Dallier N (2012) Réconciliation sémantique des données et des services mis en oeuvre au sein d’une situation collaborative. Ph.D. thesis. Les thèses en ligne de l’INPGoogle Scholar
  8. Bollati VA (2011) MeTAGeM: a framework for model-driven development of model transformations. Ph.D. Thesis. University Rey Juan Carlos.
  9. Bollati VA, Vara JM, Jiménez Á et al (2013) Applying MDE to the (semi-) automatic development of model transformations. Inf Softw Technol 55(4):699–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Camarinha-Matos LM, Afsarmanesh H (2008) Classes of collaborative networks. In: Putnik GD, Cunha MM (eds) Encyclopedia of networked and virtual organization, vol 1. Information Science Reference, Hershey, pp 193–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen D, Doumeingts G, Vernadat F (2008) Architectures for enterprise integration and interoperability: past, present and future. Comput Ind 59(7):647–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen W, Ravikumar P, Fienberg S (2003) A comparison of string metrics for matching names and records. In: Kdd workshop on data cleaning and object consolidation, vol 3, pp 73–78Google Scholar
  13. Czarnecki K, Helsen S (2003) Classification of model transformation approaches. In: Proceedings of the 2nd OOPSLA workshop on generative techniques in the context of the model driven architecture, vol 45, no. 3, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  14. De Castro V, Marcos E, Vara JM (2011) Applying CIM-to-PIM model transformations for the service-oriented development of information systems. Inf Softw Technol 53(1):87–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Del Fabro MD, Valduriez P (2009) Towards the efficient development of model transformations using model weaving and matching transformations. Softw Syst Model 8(3):305–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Falleri JR, Huchard M, Lafourcade M, Nebut C (2008) Metamodel matching for automatic model transformation generation. In: Czarnecki K, Ober I, Bruel J-M, Uhl A, Völter M (eds) Model driven engineering languages and systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 326–340Google Scholar
  17. García J, Diaz O, Azanza M (2013) Model transformation co-evolution: a semi-automatic approach. Softw Lang Eng 7745:144–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilleland M (2009) Levenshtein distance, in three flavors. Merriam Park Software.
  19. Grangel R, Bigand M, Bourey JP (2010) Transformation of decisional models into UML: application to GRAI grids. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 23(7):655–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guerra E, de Lara J, Kolovos DS, Paige RF, Dos Santos OM (2013) Engineering model transformations with transML. Softw Syst Model 12(3):555–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heeringa WJ (2004) Measuring dialect pronunciation differences using Levenshtein distance. University Library Groningen, HostGoogle Scholar
  22. Henderson-Sellers B, Gonzalez-Perez C (2008) Standardizing methodology metamodelling and notation: an ISO exemplar. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. Herrmannsdoerfer M, Benz S, Juergens E (2009) COPE-automating coupled evolution of metamodels and models. In: ECOOP 2009—object-oriented programming. Springer, Berlin, pp 52–76Google Scholar
  24. Huang X (2007) An OWL-based WordNet lexical ontology. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A 8(6):864–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. IEEE (1991) IEEE standard computer dictionary: a compilation of IEEE standard computer glossaries. doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.1991.106963
  26. Ide N, Pustejovsky J (2010) What does interoperability mean, anyway? Toward an operational definition of interoperability for language technology. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on global interoperability for language resources, Hong Kong, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  27. Jouault F, Kurtev I (2005) Transforming models with ATL. In: Satellite events at the MoDELS 2005 conference. Springer, Berlin, pp 128–138Google Scholar
  28. Jouault F, Allilaire F, Bézivin J, Kurtev I, Valduriez P (2006) ATL: a QVT-like transformation language. In: Companion to the 21st ACM SIGPLAN symposium on object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications. ACM, pp 719–720Google Scholar
  29. Jouault F, Allilaire F, Bézivin J et al (2008) ATL: a model transformation tool. Sci Comput Program 72(1):31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jung J, Choi I, Song M (2007) An integration architecture for knowledge management systems and business process management systems. Comput Ind 58(1):21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kappel G, Kargl H, Kramler G, Schauerhuber A, Seidl M, Strommer M, Wimmer M (2007) Matching metamodels with semantic systems—an experience report. In: BTW workshops, pp 38–52Google Scholar
  32. Kleppe AG, Warmer JB, Bast W (2003) MDA explained: the model driven architecture: practice and promise. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  33. Konstantas D, Bourrieres J-P, Léonard M, Boudjlida N (2005) Interoperability of enterprise systems and applications. In: Proceedings of the international conference on interoperability for enterprise systems and applications (I-ESA) 2005, Geneva, Switzerland. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  34. Li L (2012) Effects of enterprise technology on supply chain collaboration: analysis of china-linked supply chain. Enterp Inf Syst 6(1):55–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lin F, Sandkuhl K (2008) A survey of exploiting wordnet in ontology matching. In: Bramer M (ed) Artificial intelligence in theory and practice II. Springer, Berlin, pp 341–350Google Scholar
  36. Malone TW, Crowston K, Herman GA (2003) Organizing business knowledge: the MIT process handbook. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller J, Mukerji J (2003) MDA guide version 1.0.1. Object Management Group.
  38. OMG (2008) Meta object facility (mof) 2.0 query/view/transformation specification. Final Adopted Specification (November 2005)Google Scholar
  39. Panetto H, Molina A (2008) Enterprise integration and interoperability in manufacturing systems: trends and issues. Comput Ind 59(7):641–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Porter MF (2001) Snowball: a language for stemming algorithms.
  41. Pressman RS (2005) Software engineering: a practitioner's approach. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Ramirez R, Melville N, Lawler E (2010) Information technology infrastructure, organizational process redesign, and business value: an empirical analysis. Decis Support Syst 49(4):417–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scheer A-W (1992) Architecture of integrated information systems: foundations of enterprise modelling. Springer, Berlin. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-97389-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shvaiko P, Euzenat J (2005) A survey of schema-based matching approaches. In: Spaccapietra S (ed) Journal on data semantics IV. Springer, Berlin, pp 146–171Google Scholar
  45. Terrasse MN, Savonnet M, Leclercq E, Grison T, Becker G (2005) Points de vue croisés sur les notions de modèle et métamodèle. 1ères journées sur l’Ingénierie Dirigée par les Modèles, pp 17–28Google Scholar
  46. Touzi J, Lorré J-P, Bénaben F et al (2007) Interoperability through model-based generation: the case of the collaborative information system (CIS). Enterprise Interoperability, Part VII. Springer, London, pp 407–416. doi: 10.1007/978-1-84628-714-5_38
  47. Tratt L (2005) Model transformations and tool integration. Softw Syst Model 4(2):112–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van der Aalst W (2013) Business process management: a comprehensive survey. ISRN Softw Eng 2013:1–37Google Scholar
  49. Varró D, Pataricza A (2004) Generic and meta-transformations for model transformation engineering. In: Baar T, Strohmeier A, Moreira A, Mellor SJ (eds) «UML» 2004—the unified modeling language. Modeling languages and applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 290–304Google Scholar
  50. Vernadat F (1999) Techniques de modélisation en entreprise: applications aux processus opérationnels. Editions Economica, ParisGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang T, Truptil S, Benaben F (2015a) An automatic model transformation methodology to serve web service composition data transforming problem. In: 2015 IEEE world congress on services (SERVICES). IEEE, pp 135–142Google Scholar
  52. Wang T, Truptil S, Benaben F (2015b) Applying a semantic & syntactic comparisons based automatic model transformation methodology to serve information sharing. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information and knowledge engineering (IKE). The steering committee of the world congress in computer science, computer engineering and applied computing (WorldComp), p 3Google Scholar
  53. Weske M (2012) Business process management: concepts, languages, architectures. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wetzstein B, Ma Z, Filipowska A, Kaczmarek M, Bhiri S, Losada S, Lopez-Cob J-M, Cicurel L (2007) Semantic business process management: a lifecycle based requirements analysis. In SBPMGoogle Scholar
  55. Wieringa R, Daneva M (2015) Six strategies for generalizing software engineering theories. Sci Comput Program 101:136–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Willett P (2006) The Porter stemming algorithm: then and now. Program 40(3):219–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zdravković M, Noran O, Panetto H, Trajanović M (2015) Enabling interoperability as a property of ubiquitous systems for disaster management. Comput Sci Inf Syst 12(3):1009–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre Genie IndustrielUniversity de Toulouse - Mines AlbiAlbiFrance

Personalised recommendations