Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 112–122 | Cite as

Model transformations and tool integration

  • Laurence Tratt
Special section on model-based tool integration


Model transformations are increasingly recognised as being of significant importance to many areas of software development and integration. Recent attention on model transformations has particularly focused on the OMG’s Queries/Views/Transformations (QVT) Request for Proposals (RFP). In this paper I motivate the need for dedicated approaches to model transformations, particularly for the data involved in tool integration, outline the challenges involved, and then present a number of technologies and techniques which allow the construction of flexible, powerful and practical model transformations.


Modelling Transformations Model transformations QVT Tool integration 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Agrawal A, Karsai G, Shi F (2003) Graph transformations on domain-specific models. Technical report, Institute for Software Integrated Systems, Vanderbilt University, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aho AV, Sethi R, Ullman JD (1986) Compilers: Principles, Techniques and Tools. Addison WesleyGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akehurst DH, Kent SJH (2002) A relational approach to defining transformations in a metamodel. In: Jézéquel J-M, Hussmann H, Cook S (eds) UML 2002 – The Unified Modeling Language: 5th International Conference. Springer-Verlag, pp 243–258Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andries M, Engels G, Habel A, Hoffmann B, Kreowski H-J, Kuske S, Plump D, Schürr A, Taentzer G (1999) Graph transformation for specification and programming. Technical Report 7, University of BremenGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Appukuttan B, Clark T, Evans A, Kent S, Maskeri G, Sammut P, Tratt L, Willans JS (2002) Unambiguous uml submission to uml 2 infrastructure rfp, September. OMG document ad/2002-06-14Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Appukuttan BK, Clark T, Reddy S, Tratt L, Venkatesh R (2003) A pattern based model driven approach to model transformations. In: Metamodelling for MDA 2003, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barták R (1999) Constraint programming: What is behind? In: Proceedings of CPDC99, pp 7–15, JuneGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Becker SM, Haase T, Westfechtel B (2004) Model-based a-posteriori integration of engineering tools for incremental development processes. SoSyM. To appearGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bergmans LM, Aksit M (2001) How to deal with encapsulation in aspect-orientation. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 2001 Workshop on Advanced Separation of Concerns in Object-Oriented Systems, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bex GJ, Maneth S, Neven F (2002) A formal model for an expressive fragment of XSLT. Information Systems 28(1):21–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bézivin J, Dupé, G., Jouault F, Pitette G, Rougui JE (2003) First experiments with the ATL model transformation language: Transforming XSLT into XQuery. In: 2nd OOPSLA Workshop on Generative Techniques in the context of Model Driven Architecture, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bézivin J, Gérard S (2002) A preliminary identification of MDA components. In: Generative Techniques in the context of Model Driven Architecture, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Biggerstaff TJ (1995) Pattern matching for program generation: A user manual. Technical Report TR-98-55, Microsoft ResearchGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Borovanský P, Kirchner C, Kirchner H, Moreau P-E, Vittek M (1996) Elan: A logical framework based on computational systems. In: Proc. first international workshop on rewriting logicGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Braun P, Marschall F (2002) Transforming object oriented models with BOTL. International Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques 72(3)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clark T, Evans A, Kent S (2001) Initial submission to OMG RFP’s ad/00-09-01 (UML 2.0 infrastructure) ad/00-09-03 (UML 2.0 OCL)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Compuware, Sun (2003) XMOF queries, views and transformations on models using MOF, OCL and patterns, August. OMG document ad/2003-08-07Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Czarnecki K, Eisenecker UW (2000) Generative Programming. Addison WesleyGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Czarnecki K, Helsen S (2003) Classification of model transformation approaches. In: Bettin J, van Emde Boas G, Agrawal A, Willink E, Bézivin J (eds) Second Workshop on Generative Techniques in the context of Model Driven Architecture, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    DSTC, IBM, CBOP (2003) MOF query/views/transformations first revised submission, August. OMG document ad/2003-08-03Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Evans A (1998) Reasoning with UML class diagrams. In: Second IEEE Workshop on Industrial Strength Formal Specification Techniques, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gardner T, Griffin C, Koehler J, Hauser R (2003) Query/views/transformations submissions & recommendations towards final standard, August. OMG document ad/03-08-02Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gerber A, Lawley M, Raymond K, Steel J, Wood A (2002) Transformation: The missing link of MDA. In: Corradini A, Ehrig H, Kreowski H-J, Rozenberg G (eds) Graph Transformation: First International Conference, ICGT 2002, pp 90–105, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gogolla M (2000) Graph transformations on the UML metamodel. In: Rolim JDP, Broder AZ, Corradini A, Gorrieri R, Heckel R, Hromkovic J, Vaccaro U, Wells JB (eds) ICALP Workshop on Graph Transformations and Visual Modeling Techniques. Carleton Scientific, pp 359–371Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gogolla M, Parisi-Presicce F (1998) State diagrams in UML: A formal semantics using graph transformations. In: Broy M, Coleman D, Maibaum TSE, Rumpe B (eds) Proceedings PSMT’98 Workshop on Precise Semantics for Modeling Techniques. Technische Universität München, TUM-I9803Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gogolla M, Ziemann P, Kuske S (2003) Towards an integrated graph based semantics for UML. In: Bottoni P, Minas M (eds) Proc. Int. Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques (GT-VMT 2002), Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol 72Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Griswold RE, Griswold MT (1996) The Icon Programming Language. Peer-to-Peer Communications, third editionGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heckel R, Küster JM, Taentzer G (2002) Confluence of typed attributed graph transformation systems. In: Corradini A, Kreowski, H-J (eds) Proceedings First International Conference on Graph Transformation (ICGT 02). Springer-Verlag, pp 161–176, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hudak P (1996) Building domain-specific embedded languages. ACM Computing Surveys 28(4):196, DecemberCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kepser S (2002) A proof of the Turing-completeness of XSLT and XQuery. Technical Report SFB 441, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, JuneGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Küster JM, Heckel R, Engels G (2003) Defining and validating transformations of UML models. In: IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Formal Methods, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lacey D, Jones ND, Wyk EV, Frederiksen CC (2002) Proving correctness of compiler optimizations by temporal logic. In: Proc. 29th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. Association of Computing Machinery, pp 283–294Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lano K, Bicarregui J (1998) UML refinement and abstraction transformations. In: Second Workshop on Rigorous Object Oriented Methods: ROOM 2, Bradford, MayGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Levendovszky T, Karsai G, Maroti M, Ledeczi A, Charaf H (2002) Model reuse with metamodel-based transformations. In: Gacek C (ed) ICSR, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2319. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Object Management Group (2002) Request for Proposal: MOF 2.0 Query/Views/Transformations RFP. OMG document ad/2002-04-10Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Object constraint language specification (1997) OMG document ad/97-08-08Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    OpenQVT (2003) Response to the MOF 2.0 query/views/transformations RFP, August. OMG document ad/2003-08-05Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Peltier M, Bézivin J, Guillaume G (2001) MTRANS: A general framework, based on XSLT, for model transformations. In: WTUML 2001, Italy, AprilGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    QVT-Partners (2003) First revised submission to QVT RFP, August. OMG document ad/03-08-08Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schürr A, Winter AJ (1998) UML packages for programmed graph rewriting systems. In: Proc. TAGT’98 – Theory and Application of Graph Transformations, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sendall S (2003) Combining generative and graph transformation techniques for model transformation: An effective alliance? In: Generative techniques in the context of MDA, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sheard T, Jones SP (2002) Template meta-programming for Haskell. In: Proceedings of the Haskell workshop 2002. ACMGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sutherland I (1963) Sketchpad: a man-machine graphical communication system. In: Proceedings Spring Joint Computer Conference, IFIPS, pp 329–346Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tratt L, Clark T (2003) Issues surrounding model consistency and QVT. Technical Report TR-03-08, Department of Computer Science, King’s College London, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tratt L, Clark T (2003) Model transformations in Converge, October. Workshop in Software Model Engineering (WiSME) 2003Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    van Rossum G (2001) Python 2.2 reference manual. Scholar
  47. 47.
    Varró D, Pataricza A (2003) UML action semantics for model transformation systems. Periodica Politechnica 47(3):167–168Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    W3C (1999) XSL Transformations (XSLT). Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wall L, Christiansen T, Orwant J (2000) Programming Perl. O’Reilly, third editionGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Whittle J (2002) Transformations and software modeling languages: Automating transformations in UML. In: Jézéquel J-M, Hussmann H, Cook S (eds) UML 2002 – The Unified Modeling Language: 5th International Conference. Springer-Verlag, pp 227–242Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Willink ED (2003) UMLX : A graphical transformation language for MDA. In: 2nd OOPSLA Workshop on Generative Techniques in the context of Model Driven Architecture, OctoberGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations