Advertisement

Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 285–309 | Cite as

Module superimposition: a composition technique for rule-based model transformation languages

  • Dennis WagelaarEmail author
  • Ragnhild Van Der Straeten
  • Dirk Deridder
Special Section Paper

Abstract

As the application of model transformation becomes increasingly commonplace, the focus is shifting from model transformation languages to the model transformations themselves. The properties of model transformations, such as scalability, maintainability and reusability, have become important. Composition of model transformations allows for the creation of smaller, maintainable and reusable transformation definitions that together perform a larger transformation. This paper focuses on composition for two rule-based model transformation languages: the ATLAS Transformation Language (ATL) and the QVT Relations language. We propose a composition technique called module superimposition that allows for extending and overriding rules in transformation modules. We provide executable semantics as well as a concise and scalable implementation of module superimposition based on ATL.

Keywords

Software engineering Model driven engineering Model transformation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    ATLAS group, LINA and INRIA, Nantes, France.: Specification of the ATL Virtual Machine. http://www.eclipse.org/m2m/atl/doc/ATL_VMSpecification%5Bv00.01%5D.pdf. Version 0.1 (2005)
  2. 2.
    Boronat A., Carsí J.A., Ramos I.: Algebraic specification of a model transformation engine. In: Baresi, L., Heckel, R. (eds) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE’06), Vienna, Austria, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3922, pp. 262–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Budinsky F., Steinberg D., Merks E., Ellersick R., Grose T.J.: Eclipse Modeling Framework. The Eclipse Series. Addison Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cuadrado, J.S., Molina, J.G.: Approaches for model transformation reuse: factorization and composition. In: Vallecillo et al. [17], pp. 168–182Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Czarnecki K., Helsen S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst. J. 45(3), 621–645 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming models with ATL. In: Model Transformations in Practice Workshop at MoDELS 2005, Montego Bay, Jamaica (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: On the architectural alignment of atl and qvt. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2006), Dijon, France (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kleppe A., Warmer J., Bast W.: MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Addison Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kleppe, A.G.: First european workshop on composition of model transformations—CMT 2006. Technical Report TR-CTIT-06-34, Enschede (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kniesel, G., Koch, H.: Static Composition of Refactorings. Science of Computer Programming, vol. 52(1–3), pp. 9–51 (Special issue on Program Transformation) (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.: The epsilon transformation language. In: Vallecillo et al. [17], pp. 46–60Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kurtev, I., van den Berg, K., Jouault, F.: Evaluation of rule-based modularization in model transformation languages illustrated with ATL. In: SAC ’06: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied computing, pp. 1202–1209. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mens T., Gorp P.V.: A taxonomy of model transformation. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 152, 125–142 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mens T., Taentzer G., Runge O.: Detecting structural refactoring conflicts using critical pair analysis. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 127(3), 113–128 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Object Management Group, Inc.: Request for Proposal: MOF 2.0 Query/Views/Transformations RFP (2004). Ad/2002-04-10Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group, Inc.: Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation Specification (2008). Version 1.0, formal/08-04-03Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vallecillo, A., Gray, J., Pierantonio, A. (eds.): First International Conference on Model Transformation (ICMT 2008), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5063. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wagelaar, D.: Composition techniques for rule-based model transformation languages. In: Vallecillo et al. [17]Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wagelaar D., VanDer Straeten R.: Platform ontologies for the model-driven architecture. Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 16(4), 362–373 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis Wagelaar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ragnhild Van Der Straeten
    • 1
  • Dirk Deridder
    • 1
  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations