Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 55–75 | Cite as

Realizing Model Transformation Chain interoperability

  • Andrés Yie
  • Rubby Casallas
  • Dirk Deridder
  • Dennis Wagelaar
Theme Section

Abstract

A single Model Transformation Chain (MTC) takes a high-level input model rooted in the problem domain and through one or more transformation steps produces a low-level output model rooted in the solution domain. To build a single “almighty” MTC that is in charge of every design, implementation and specific platform concern is a complex task. Instead, we can use several smaller MTCs that are easier to develop and maintain, because each MTC is independently developed focusing on a specific concern. However, the MTCs must interoperate to produce complete applications; this inherently creates dependencies between them, because each MTC generates a part of the final low-level model. In this paper, we propose an external and explicit mechanism to track dependencies between the MTCs (i.e., the MTCs are oblivious to the mechanism), which is used to automatically derive correspondence relationships between the final models generated by each MTC. The contribution of our mechanism is the reduction of complexity of building interoperable MTCs because the derived correspondences are resolved after the transformations execution, in the solution domain where the semantics of every concept is well-defined. The resolution process consists of (1) checking the consistency between the models, (2) producing communication bridges or (3) guiding the composition of the models. This paper presents three case studies to illustrate the derivation and resolution of correspondence relationships through the MTCs.

Keywords

Software Engineering Model-driven Engineering Model Transformation Chains Interoperability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aizenbud-Reshef N., Nolan B.T., Rubin J., Shaham-Gafni Y.: Model traceability. IBM Syst. J. 45(3), 515–526 (2006). doi:10.1147/sj.453.0515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basin D., Doser J., Lodderstedt T.: Model driven security: from uml models to access control infrastructures. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 15(1), 39–91 (2006). doi:10.1145/1125808.1125810 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bézivin, J., Bouzitouna, S., Del Fabro, M., Gervais, M.P., Jouault, F., Kolovos, D., Kurtev, I., Paige, R.F.: A canonical scheme for model composition. Model Driven Architect. Found. Appl., pp. 346–360 (2006). doi:10.1007/11787044_26
  4. 4.
    Cibran, M., D’Hondt, M.: A slice of mde with aop: Transforming high-level business rules to aspects. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on MoDELS/UML (2006). doi:10.1007/11880240_13
  5. 5.
    Cicchetti A., Di Ruscio D.: Decoupling web application concerns through weaving operations. Sci. Comput. Program. 70(1), 62–86 (2008). doi:10.1016/j.scico.2007.10.002 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dingel J., Diskin Z., Zito A.: Understanding and improving uml package merge. Softw. Syst. Model. 7(4), 443–467 (2008). doi:10.1007/s10270-007-0073-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fabro M.D.D., Valduriez P.: Towards the efficient development of model transformations using model weaving and matching transformations. Softw. Syst. Model. 8(3), 305–324 (2009). doi:10.1007/s10270-008-0094-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    France, R., Rumpe, B.: Model-driven development of complex software: a research roadmap. FOSE ’07: 2007 Future of Software Engineering (2007). http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1253532.1254709
  9. 9.
    Gasevic, D., Djurić, D., Devedžić, V.: Model driven engineering and ontology development, p. 378 (2009). http://books.google.com/books?id=s-9yu7ubSykC&printsec=frontcover
  10. 10.
    Goncalves A.: Beginning Java EE 6 Platform with GlassFish 3: From Novice to Professional. The Expert’s Voice in Java Technology. APress, Berkeley (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Group, O.M.: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), infrastructure, v2.1.2. Tech. rep. (2007). http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.1.2/Infrastructure/PDF
  12. 12.
    Hanenberg, S., Stein, D., Unland, R.: From aspect-oriented design to aspect-oriented programs: tool-supported translation of jpdds into code. In: AOSD ’07: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Aspect-oriented Software Development (2007). http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1218563.1218570
  13. 13.
    Jeanneret, C., France, R., Baudry, B.: A reference process for model composition. In: AOM ’08: Proceedings of the 2008 AOSD Workshop on Aspect-oriented Modeling, pp. 1–6. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2008). doi:10.1145/1404920.1404921
  14. 14.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: On the architectural alignment of atl and qvt. In: SAC ’06: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1188–1195. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2006). doi:10.1145/1141277.1141561
  15. 15.
    Kienzle, J., Abed, W., Klein, J.: Aspect-oriented multi-view modeling. In: AOSD ’09: Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Aspect-oriented Software Development (2009). http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1509239.1509252
  16. 16.
    Kleppe A.G., Warmer J., Bast W.: MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co Inc, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Küster, J., Gschwind, T., Zimmermann, O.: Incremental development of model transformation chains using automated testing. Model Driven Eng. Lang. Syst., pp. 733–747 (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04425-0_60
  18. 18.
    Linington, P.: Black cats and coloured birds what do viewpoint correspondences do? In: EDOC Conference Workshop, 2007. EDOC ’07. Eleventh International IEEE, pp. 239–246 (2007). doi:10.1109/EDOCW.2007.7
  19. 19.
    Lodderstedt, T., Basin, D., Doser, J.: Secureuml: A uml-based modeling language for model-driven security. UML 2002—The Unified Modeling Language: 5th International Conference, pp. 426–441. Dresden, Germany, September 30–October 4, 2002. doi:10.1007/3-540-45800-X_33
  20. 20.
    OMG: Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification Version 2.0 (2006). http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2006-01-01
  21. 21.
    Romero, J., Jaén, J., Vallecillo, A.: Realizing correspondences in multi-viewpoint specifications. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Conference on EDOC (2009). http://www.lcc.uma.es/~av/Publicaciones/09/EDOC09.pdf
  22. 22.
    Romero, J., Jaen, J., Vallecillo, A.: Realizing correspondences in multi-viewpoint specifications. In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2009. EDOC ’09. IEEE International, pp. 163–172 (2009). doi:10.1109/EDOC.2009.23
  23. 23.
    Ruiz-Gonzalez, D., Koch, N., Kroiss, C., Romero, J., Vallecillo, A.: Viewpoint synchronization of uwe models. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Model-Driven Web Engineering (MDWE 2009), pp. 46–60 (2009). http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-455/paper04.pdf
  24. 24.
    Sandhu, R.S., Coyne, E.J., Feinstein, H.L., Youman, C.E.: Role-based access control models. Computer 29(2), 38–47 (1996). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=485845 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmidt D.C.: Guest editor’s introduction: model-driven engineering. Computer 39(2), 25–31 (2006). doi:10.1109/MC.2006.58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tolvanen, J.P., Kelly, S.: Defining domain-specific modeling languages to automate product derivation: Collected experiences. Software Product Lines pp. 198–209 (2005). doi:10.1007/11554844_22
  27. 27.
    Vanhooff, B., Baelen, S.V., Hovsepyan, A., Joosen, W., Berbers, Y.: Towards a transformation chain modeling language. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 4017, 39 (2006). https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/37137/1/2006-SAMOS2.pdf
  28. 28.
    Vanhooff, B., Baelen, S.V., Joosen, W., Berbers, Y.: Traceability as input for model transformations. Third ECMDA traceability workshop (2007). https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/146165
  29. 29.
    von Pilgrim, J., Vanhooff, B., Schulz-Gerlach, I., Berbers, Y.: Constructing and visualizing transformation chains. Model Driven Architect. Found. Appl., pp. 17–32 (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69100-6_2
  30. 30.
    Yie, A., Casallas, R., Deridder, D., Wagelaar, D.: A practical approach to multi-modeling views composition. Electronic Communications of the EASST 21.In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Multi-Paradigm Modeling (MPM 2009), pp. 1–11 (2009). http://journal.ub.tu-berlin.de/index.php/eceasst/article/view/285/284
  31. 31.
    Yie, A., Casallas, R., Deridder, D., Wagelaar, D.: Deriving correspondence relationships to guide a multi-view heterogeneous composition. Model Driven Eng. Lang. Syst., pp. 225–239 (2010). http://www.springerlink.com/index/p3q0483214643614.pdf
  32. 32.
    Yie, A., Casallas, R., Wagelaar, D., Deridder, D.: An approach for evolving transformation chains. Model Driven Eng. Lang. Syst., pp. 551–555 (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04425-0_42
  33. 33.
    Yie, A., Wagelaar, D.: Advanced traceability for atl. In: Proceedings of 1st International Workshop on Model Transformation with ATL, pp. 78–87 (2009). http://docatlanmod.emn.fr/MtATL2009Presentations/PreliminaryProceedings.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrés Yie
    • 1
  • Rubby Casallas
    • 1
  • Dirk Deridder
    • 2
  • Dennis Wagelaar
    • 2
  1. 1.Universidad de los AndesBogotáColombia
  2. 2.Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselBelgium

Personalised recommendations