Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Graph and model transformation tools for model migration

Empirical results from the transformation tool contest

Abstract

We describe the results of the Transformation Tool Contest 2010 workshop, in which nine graph and model transformation tools were compared for specifying model migration. The model migration problem—migration of UML activity diagrams from version 1.4 to version 2.2—is non-trivial and practically relevant. The solutions have been compared with respect to several criteria: correctness, conciseness, understandability, appropriateness, maturity and support for extensions to the core migration task. We describe in detail the comparison method, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the solutions with a special focus on the differences between graph and model transformation for model migration. The comparison results demonstrate tool and language features that strongly impact the efficacy of solutions, such as support for retyping of model elements. The results are used to motivate an agenda for future model migration research (including suggestions for areas in which the tools need to be further improved).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1

    Asztalos, M., Lengyel, L., Levendovszky, T., Charaf, H.: Termination analysis of the transformation UML to CSP. In: International Symposium of Hungarian Researchers on Computational Intelligence and Informatics (2007)

  2. 2

    Barzdins, J., Kalnins, A., Rencis, E., Rikacovs, S.: Model transformation languages and their implementation by bootstrapping method. In: Pillars of Computer Science. LNCS, vol. 4800, pp. 130–145. Springer, Berlin (2008)

  3. 3

    Biermann E., Ermel C., Lambers L., Prange U., Runge O., Taentzer G.: Introduction to AGG and EMF Tiger by modeling a conference scheduling system. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 12, 245–261 (2010)

  4. 4

    Blomer, J., Geiß, R., Jakumeit, E.: The GrGen.NET User Manual. http://www.grgen.net. Feb 2011

  5. 5

    Buchwald, S., Jakumeit, E.: A GrGen.NET solution of the model migration case for the Transformation Tool Contest 2010. In: TTC’10: Transformation Tool Contest (2010). Share Demo: http://is.ieis.tue.nl/staff/pvgorp/share/?page=ConfigureNewSession&vdi=Ubuntu-8.10_TTC10_GrGen.NET_v2.vdi (Ubuntu). http://is.ieis.tue.nl/staff/pvgorp/share/?page=Con-figureNewSession&vdi=XP-TUe_TTC10_GrGen.NET_v2.vdi (Windows XP)

  6. 6

    Burmester, S., Giese, H., Hirsch, M., Schilling, D., Tichy, M.: The fujaba real-time tool suite: model-driven development of safety-critical, real-time systems. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), St. Louis, Missouri, USA (2005)

  7. 7

    Cicchetti, A., Meyers, B., Wimmer, M.: Abstract and concrete syntax migration of instance models. In: TTC’10: Transformation Tool Contest (2010). Share Demo: http://is.ieis.tue.nl/staff/pvgorp/share/?page=ConfigureewSession&vdi=XP-TUe_TTC10_holetown_crew.vdi

  8. 8

    Cicchetti, A., Ruscio, D.D., Eramo, R., Pierantonio, A.: Automating co-evolution in model-driven engineering. In: EDOC’08: International IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, pp. 222–231. IEEE (2008)

  9. 9

    Czarnecki K., Helsen S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst. J. 45(3), 621–645 (2006)

  10. 10

    de Lara J., Bardohl R., Ehrig H., Ehrig K., Prange U., Taentzer G.: Attributed graph transformation with node type inheritance. Theor. Comput. Sci. 376(3), 139–163 (2007)

  11. 11

    Di Ruscio, D., Laemmel, R., Pierantonio, A.: Automated co-evolution of GMF editor models. In: SLE’10: International Conference on Software Language Engineering. LNCS, vol. 6563, pp. 143–162. Springer, Berlin (2011)

  12. 12

    Ebert, J., Bildhauer, D.: Reverse engineering using graph queries. In: Graph Transformations and Model Driven Engineering. LNCS, vol. 5765. Springer, Berlin (2010)

  13. 13

    Ebert, J., Riediger, V., Winter, A.: Graph technology in reverse engineering, The TGraph Approach. In: WSR’08: Workshop Software Reengineering. GI Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol. 126. GI (2008)

  14. 14

    Erlikh L.: Leveraging legacy system dollars for e-business. IT Professional 2(3), 17–23 (2000)

  15. 15

    Frankel D.: Model Driven Architecture: Applying MDA to Enterprise Computing. Wiley, New York (2002)

  16. 16

    Garcés, K., Jouault, F., Cointe, P., Bézivin, J.: Managing model adaptation by precise detection of metamodel changes. In: ECMDA-FA’09: European Conference on Model Driven Architecture—Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 34–49. Springer, Berlin (2009)

  17. 17

    Geiger L., Zündorf A.: Fujaba case studies for GraBaTs 2008: lessons learned. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 12, 287–304 (2010)

  18. 18

    Geiß, R., Kroll, M.: On improvements of the Varro benchmark for graph transformation tools. Technical Report 2007-7, Universität Karlsruhe, IPD Goos, 12. ISSN:1432-7864 (2007)

  19. 19

    Glass G.V., Hopkins K.D.: Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology. Allyn & Bacon, New York (1995)

  20. 20

    Gordon R.: A qualitative justification for a measure of program clarity. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 5(2), 121–128 (1979)

  21. 21

    Gorp, P.V., Muliawan, O., Keller, A., Janssens, D.: Executing a standard compliant transformation model on a non-standard platform. In: AGTIVE’07: International Workshop and Symposium on Applications of Graph Transformation with Industrial Relevance. University of Kassel (2007)

  22. 22

    Gronback R.: Eclipse Modeling Project: A Domain-Specific Language (DSL) Toolkit. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2009)

  23. 23

    Grønmo, R., Møller-Pedersen, B., Olsen, G.: Comparison of three model transformation languages. In: ECMDA-FA’09: European Conference on Model Driven Architecture—Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 2–17. Springer, Berlin (2009)

  24. 24

    Habel, A., Plump, D.: Computational completeness of programming languages based on graph transformation. In: Proc. FoSSaCS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2030, pp. 230–245 (2001)

  25. 25

    Halstead M.: Elements of Software Science. Elsevier, New York (1977)

  26. 26

    Herrmannsdoerfer, M.: Migrating UML activity models with COPE. In: TTC’10: Transformation Tool Contest (2010). Share Demo: http://is.ieis.tue.nl/staff/pvgorp/share/?page=ConfigureNewSession&vdi=XP-TUe_TTC10_COPE.vdi

  27. 27

    Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Benz, S., Juergens, E.: Automatability of coupled evolution of metamodels and models in practice. In: MODELS’08: International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 645–659. Springer, Berlin (2008)

  28. 28

    Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Benz, S., Juergens, E.: COPE: a language for the coupled evolution of metamodels and models. In: MCCM’08: International Workshop on Model Co-Evolution and Consistency Management (2008)

  29. 29

    Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Benz, S., Juergens, E.: COPE—automating coupled evolution of metamodels and models. In: ECOOP’09: European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming. LNCS, vol. 5653, pp. 52–76. Springer, Berlin (2009)

  30. 30

    Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Koegel, M.: Towards semantics-preserving model migration. In: Deridder, D., Schaetz, B., Tamzalit, D., Pierantonio, A. (eds.) International Workshop on Models and Evolution (2010)

  31. 31

    Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Ratiu, D., Wachsmuth, G.: Language evolution in practice: the history of GMF. In: SLE’09: International Conference on Software Language Engineering. LNCS, vol. 5969, pp. 3–22. Springer, Berlin (2010)

  32. 32

    Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Vermolen, S., Wachsmuth, G.: An extensive catalog of operators for the coupled evolution of metamodels and models. In: SLE’10: International Conference on Software Language Engineering. LNCS, vol. 6563, pp. 163–182. Springer, Berlin (2011)

  33. 33

    Horn, T.: Model migration with GReTL. In: TTC’10: Transformation Tool Contest, 2010. Share Demo: http://is.ieis.tue.nl/staff/pvgorp/share/?page=ConfigureNewSession&vdi=Ubuntu-8.10_TTC10_GReTL_demo2.vdi

  34. 34

    Horn, T., Ebert, J.: The gretl transformation language. In: Cabot, J., Visser, E. (eds.) ICMT. LNCS, vol. 6707, pp. 183–197. Springer, Berlin (2011)

  35. 35

    Horn, T., Ebert, J.: GReTL: an extensible, operational, graph-based transformation language. Softw. Syst. Model (2012, accepted)

  36. 36

    Horváth A., Bergmann G., Ráth I., Varró D.: Experimental assessment of combining pattern matching strategies with VIATRA2. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 12, 211–230 (2010)

  37. 37

    Jakumeit E., Buchwald S., Kroll M.: GrGen.NET—the expressive, convenient and fast graph rewrite system. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 12, 263–271 (2010)

  38. 38

    Jouault, F.: Loosely coupled traceability for ATL. In: ECMDA-TW’05: European Conference on Model Driven Architecture—Traceability Workshop, pp. 29–37 (2005)

  39. 39

    Jouault F., Allilaire F., Bézivin J., Kurtev I.: ATL: a model transformation tool. Sci. Comput. Program. 72(1–2), 31–39 (2008)

  40. 40

    Kalnina, E., Kalnins, A., Iraids, J., Sostaks, A., Celms, E.: Model migration with MOLA. In: TTC’10: Transformation Tool Contest, 2010. Share Demo: http://is.ieis.tue.nl/staff/pvgorp/share/?page=ConfigureNewSession&vdi=XP-TUe_TTC10_MOLA_model_migration.vdi (2010)

  41. 41

    Kalnins, A., Barzdins, J., Celms, E.: Model transformation language MOLA. In: MDAFA’04: Model Driven Architecture, European MDA Workshop: Foundations and Applications, pp. 14–28, Linkoeping, Sweden (2004)

  42. 42

    Koch, A., Jubeh, R., Zündorf, A.: UML1.4 to 2.1 activity diagram model migration with Fujaba—a case study. In: TTC’10: Transformation Tool Contest, 2010. Share Demo: http://is.ieis.tue.nl/staff/pvgorp/share/?page=ConfigureNewSession&vdi=Ubuntu-8.10_TTC10_fujaba-modelmigration.vdi (2010)

  43. 43

    Lano, K., Rahimi, S.K.: Model migration transformation specification in UML-RSDS. In: TTC’10: Transformation Tool Contest (2010)

  44. 44

    Lawley, M., Steel, J.: Practical declarative model transformation with Tefkat. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS Satellite Events. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 139–150. Springer, Berlin (2005)

  45. 45

    Mankins, J.C.: Technology Readiness Levels: A White Paper. NASA (1995)

  46. 46

    Mazanek, S., Rutetzki, C., Minas, M.: Tool demonstration of the transformation judge. In: AGTIVE 2011. Springer, Berlin (2011, accepted)

  47. 47

    McCabe T.: A complexity measure. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 2(4), 308–320 (1976)

  48. 48

    Mens T., Demeyer S.: Software Evolution. Springer, Berlin (2007)

  49. 49

    Mens T., Van Gorp P.: A taxonomy of model transformation. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 152, 125–142 (2006)

  50. 50

    Mészáros T., Mezei G., Levendovszky T., Asztalos M.: Manual and automated performance optimization of model transformation systems. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 12, 231–243 (2010)

  51. 51

    Misue K., Eades P., Lai W., Sugiyama K.: Layout adjustment and the mental map. J. Visual Lang. Comput. 6(2), 183–210 (1995)

  52. 52

    Moad J.: Maintaining the competitive edge. Datamation 36(4), 61–66 (1990)

  53. 53

    Moha N., Sen S., Faucher C., Barais O., Jézéquel J.-M.: Evaluation of Kermeta for solving graph-based problems. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 12, 273–285 (2010)

  54. 54

    Muliawan, O., Gorp, P.V., Keller, A., Janssens, D.: Executing a standard compliant transformation model on a non-standard platform. In: MoDeVVA’08: Model Driven Engineering, Verification, and Validation: Integrating Verification and Validation in MDE, pp. 151–160. IEEE (2008)

  55. 55

    Muliawan O., Janssens D.: Model refactoring using MoTMoT. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 12, 201–209 (2010)

  56. 56

    Narayanan, A., Levendovszky, T., Balasubramanian, D., Karsai, G.: Automatic domain model migration to manage metamodel evolution. In: MODELS’09: International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 706–711. Springer, Berlin (2009)

  57. 57

    OMG. Unified Modelling Language 1.4 Specification. Accessed 02 Nov 2010. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/1.4/ (2001)

  58. 58

    OMG. Unified Modelling Language 2.2 Specification. Accessed 02 Nov 2010. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.2/ (2007)

  59. 59

    Pérez J., Crespo Y., Hoffmann B., Mens T.: A case study to evaluate the suitability of graph transformation tools for program refactoring. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 12, 183–199 (2010)

  60. 60

    Portney L., Watkins M.: Foundations of Clinical Research. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2000)

  61. 61

    Rencis, E.: Model transformation languages l1, l2, l3 and their implementation. Technical report, University of Latvia (2008)

  62. 62

    Rensink A., Van Gorp P.: Graph transformation tool contest 2008. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 12, 171–181 (2010)

  63. 63

    Rose, L., Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Williams, J., Kolovos, D., Garcés, K., Paige, R., Polack, F.: A comparison of model migration tools. In: Petriu, D., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS’10: International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. LNCS, vol. 6394, pp. 61–75. Springer, Berlin (2010)

  64. 64

    Rose, L.M., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.: Migrating activity diagrams with Epsilon Flock. In: TTC’10: Transformation Tool Contest, 2010. Share Demo: http://is.ieis.tue.nl/staff/pvgorp/share/?page=ConfigureNewSession&vdi=XP-TUe_TTC10_flockxp.vdi (2010)

  65. 65

    Rose, L.M., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.: Model migration case for TTC 2010. In: TTC’10: Transformation Tool Contest (2010)

  66. 66

    Rose, L.M., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.: Model migration with Epsilon Flock. In: ICMT’10: International Conference on Model Transformation. LNCS, vol. 6142, pp. 184–198. Springer, Berlin (2010)

  67. 67

    Rose, L.M., Paige, R.F., Kolovos, D.S., Polack, F.A.: An analysis of approaches to model migration. In: MoDSE-MCCM’09: Joint MoDSE-MCCM Workshop on Models and Evolution (2009)

  68. 68

    Schätz, B.: UML model migration with PETE. In: TTC’10: Transformation Tool Contest, 2010. Share Demo: http://is.ieis.tue.nl/staff/pvgorp/share/?page=ConfigureNewSession&vdi=Ubuntu-8.10_TTC10_PETE_model-migration.vdi (2010)

  69. 69

    Schätz, B.: Verification of model transformations. ECEASST: Electron. Commun. Eur. Assoc. Softw. Sci. Technol. 29 (2010)

  70. 70

    Selic, B.: What’s new in UML 2.0? IBM Rational software (2005)

  71. 71

    Sommerville I.: Software Engineering, 9th edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2006)

  72. 72

    Sprinkle J., Karsai G.: A domain-specific visual language for domain model evolution. J. Visual Lang. Comput. 15(3–4), 291–307 (2004)

  73. 73

    Street, J.A., Pettit, R.G.: The impact of UML 2.0 on existing UML 1.4 models. In: MODELS’05: International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 431–444. Springer, Berlin (2005)

  74. 74

    Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H.: De-/re-constructing model transformation languages. ECEASST 29 (2010)

  75. 75

    Taentzer, G., Ehrig, K., Guerra, E., Lara, J.D., Levendovszky, T., Prange, U., Varro, D.: Model transformations by graph transformations: a comparative study. In: Model Transformations in Practice Workshop at MODELS 2005, Montego, p. 5 (2005)

  76. 76

    van Amstel, M., Lange, C.F.J., van den Brand, M.: Using metrics for assessing the quality of ASF+SDF model transformations. In: Paige, R.F. (ed.) ICMT’09: International Conference on Model Transformation. LNCS, vol. 5563, pp. 239–248. Springer, Berlin (2009)

  77. 77

    van Amstel, M.F., Bosems, S., Pires, L.F., Kurtev, I.: Performance in model transformations: a comparison between ATL and QVT. In: ICMT’11: International Conference on Model Transformation. LNCS, vol. 6707, pp. 198–212. Springer, Berlin (2011)

  78. 78

    Van Gorp, P.: Model-driven development of model transformations. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Graph Transformations, ICGT’08, pp. 517–519. Springer, Berlin (2008)

  79. 79

    Van Gorp, P., Eshuis, R.: Transforming process models: executable rewrite rules versus a formalized java program. In: MODELS’10: International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. LNCS, vol. 6395, pp. 258–272. Springer, Berlin (2010)

  80. 80

    Van Gorp P., Keller A., Janssens D.: Transformation language integration based on profiles and higher order transformations. In: Gaevic, D., Lmmel, R., Van Wyk, E. (eds) Software Language Engineering. LNCS, vol. 5452, pp. 208–226. Springer, Berlin (2009)

  81. 81

    Varró, D., Asztalos, M., Bisztray, D., Boronat, A., Dang, D.-H., Geiß, R., Greenyer, J., Van Gorp, P., Kniemeyer, O., Narayanan, A., Rencis, E., Weinell, E.: Transformation of UML models to CSP: a case study for graph transformation tools. In: AGITIVE’08: International Symposium on Applications of Graph Transformation with Industrial Relevance. LNCS, vol. 5088, pp. 540–565. Springer, Berlin (2008)

  82. 82

    Varró, G., Schürr, A., Varró, D.: Benchmarking for graph transformation. In: VL/HCC, pp. 79–88. IEEE Computer Society (2005)

  83. 83

    Visser, E.: A survey of rewriting strategies in program transformation systems. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 57(2) (2001)

  84. 84

    Wachsmuth, G.: Metamodel adaptation and model co-adaptation. In: ECOOP’07: European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming. LNCS, vol. 4609, pp. 600–624. Springer, Berlin (2007)

  85. 85

    Wimmer, M., Kusel, A., Schönböck, J., Retschitzegger, W., Schwinger, W., Kappel, G.: On using inplace transformations for model co-evolution. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Model Transformation with ATL (MtATL) at TOOLS’10, pp. 65–78. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 711 (2010)

  86. 86

    Zündorf, A.: Rigorous object oriented software development. Habilitation thesis, University of Paderborn (2001)

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Louis M. Rose.

Additional information

Communicated by Dr. Andy Schürr and Arend Rensink.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rose, L.M., Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Mazanek, S. et al. Graph and model transformation tools for model migration. Softw Syst Model 13, 323–359 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-012-0245-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Model transformation
  • Graph transformation
  • Co-evolution