Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 1003–1028 | Cite as

A survey of approaches for verifying model transformations

Regular Paper

Abstract

As with other software development artifacts, model transformations are not bug-free and so must be systematically verified. Their nature, however, means that transformations require specialist verification techniques. This paper brings together current research on model transformation verification by classifying existing approaches along two dimensions. Firstly, we present a coarse-grained classification based on the technical details of the approach (e.g., testing, theorem proving, model checking). Secondly, we present a finer-grained classification which categorizes approaches according to criteria such as level of formality, transformation language, properties verified. The purpose of the survey is to bring together research in model transformation verification to act as a resource for the community. Furthermore, based on the survey, we identify a number of trends in current and past research on model transformation verification.

Keywords

Model transformations Verification Survey 

References

  1. 1.
    Ab. Rahim, L., Whittle, J.: Verifying semantic conformance of state machine-to-java code generators. In: Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems—13th International Conference, MODELS 2010, Proceedings, Part I, vol. 6394 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 166–180, Oslo, Norway, October 2010. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ab. Rahim, L., Whittle, J.: Identifying state space reduction techniques from behavioural design patterns. In: Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Behavioural Modelling, BM-FA ’11, pp. 49–55. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amelunxen, C., Klar, F., Königs, A., Rötschke, T., Schürr, A.: Metamodel-based tool integration with Moflon. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’08, pp. 807–810. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amrani, M., Lucio, L., Selim, G., Combemale, B., Dingel, J., Vangheluwe, H., Le Traon, Y., Cordy, J.R.: A tridimensional approach for studying the formal verification of model transformations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Fifth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, pp. 921–928. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amstel, M.F., Lange, C.F., Brand, M.G.: Using metrics for assessing the quality of ASF+SDF model transformations. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, ICMT ’09, pp. 239–248. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asztalos, M., Lengyel, L., Levendovszky, T.: A formalism for describing modeling transformations for verification. In: MoDeVVa ’09: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Model-Driven Engineering, Verification and Validation, pp. 1–10. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baar, T., Marković, S.: A graphical approach to prove the semantic preservation of UML/OCL refactoring rules. In: Perspectives of Systems Informatics, vol. 4378 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 70–83. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Balser, M., Reif, W., Schellhorn, G., Stenzel, K., Thums, A.: Formal system development with KIV. In: Maibaum, T. (ed.) Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, vol. 1783 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 363–366. Springer, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barbosa, P.E.S., Ramalho, F., de Figueiredo, J.C.A., dos S. Junior, A.D.: An extended MDA architecture for ensuring semantics-preserving transformations. In: 32nd Annual IEEE Software Engineering, Workshop, pp. 33–42, October (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barbosa, P.E.S., Ramalho, F., de Figueiredo, J.C.A., dos S. Junior, A.D., Costa, A., Gomes, L.: Checking semantics equivalence of MDA transformations in concurrent systems. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 15(11), 2196–2224 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baudry, B., Dinh-trong, T., Mottu, J.-M., Simmonds, D., France, R., Ghosh, S., Fleurey, F., Le Traon, Y.: Model transformation testing challenges. In: ECMDA Workshop on Integration of Model Driven Development and Model Driven Testing (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blair, G., Bencomo, N., France, R.B.: Models\(@\)run.time. Computer 42, 22–27 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blech, J.O., Glesner, S., Leitner, J.: Formal verification of java code generation from UML models. In: 3rd International Fujaba Days 2005-MDD, in Practice, pp. 49–56 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boehm, B.: Verifying and validating software requirements and design specifications. IEEE Softw. 1(1), 75–88 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boronat, A., Heckel, R., Meseguer, J.: Rewriting logic semantics and verification of model transformations. In: Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE), pp. 18–33 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bouhoula, A., Jouannaud, J.-P., Meseguer, J.: Specification and proof in membership equational logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 236(12), 35–132 (2000)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brooks Jr, F.P.: The Mythical Man-Month, Anniversary edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brottier, E., Fleurey, F., Steel, J., Baudry, B., Le Traon, Y.: Metamodel-based test generation for model transformations: an algorithm and a tool. In: 17th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE ’06), pp. 85–94. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buth, B., Buth, K., Franzle, M., Karger, B., Lakhneche, Y., Langmaack, H., Muller-Olm, M.: Provably correct compiler development and implementation. In: Compiler Construction, pp. 141–155. Springer, Berlin (1992)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: Verification and validation of declarative model-to-model transformations through invariants. J. Syst. Softw. 83, 283–302 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Calegari, D., Luna, C., Szasz, N., Tasistro, Á.: A type-theoretic framework for certified model transformations. In: Davies, J., Silva, L., Simao, A. (eds.) Formal Methods: Foundations and Applications, vol. 6527 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 112–127. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cariou, E., Marvie, R., Seinturier, L., Duchien, L.: OCL for the specification of model transformation contracts. In: Workshop OCL and Model Driven Engineering of the Seventh International Conference on UML Modeling Languages and Applications (UML’04) (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Caspi, P., Curic, A., Maignan, A., Sofronis, C., Tripakis, S., Niebert, P.: From simulink to SCADE/Lustre to TTA: a layered approach for distributed embedded applications. In: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGPLAN conference on Language, compiler, and tool for embedded systems (LCTES ’03), pp. 153–162. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chaki, S., Ivers, J., Lee, P., Wallnau, K., Zeillberger, N.: Model-driven construction of certified binaries. In: 10th International Conference, MODELS 2007, pp. 666–681. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cheng, B.H., Lemos, R., Giese, H., Inverardi, P., Magee, J., Andersson, J., Becker, B., Bencomo, N., Brun, Y., Cukic, B., Marzo, Serugendo G., Dustdar, S., Finkelstein, A., Gacek, C., Geihs, K., Grassi, V., Karsai, G., Kienle, H.M., Kramer, J., Litoiu, M., Malek, S., Mirandola, R., Müller, H.A., Park, S., Shaw, M., Tichy, M., Tivoli, M., Weyns, D., Whittle, J.: Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems: A Research Roadmap, pp. 1–26. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clavel, M., Egea, M.: ITP/OCL: A rewriting-based validation tool for UML+OCL static class diagrams. In: Johnson, M., Vene, V. (eds.) Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology, vol. 4019 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 368–373. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cornelissen, B., Holten, D., Zaidman, A., Moonen, L., van Wijk, J.J., van Deursen, A.: Understanding execution traces using massive sequence and circular bundle views. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension, ICPC ’07, pp. 49–58. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst. J. 45(3), 621–645 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Darabos, A., Pataricza, A., Varró, D.: Towards testing the implementation of graph transformations. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Graph Transformations and Visual Modeling Techniques, pp. 69–80. Elsevier (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Denney, E., Fischer, B.: Generating customized verifiers for automatically generated code. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering (GPCE ’08), pp. 77–88. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Denney, E., Fischer, B., Schumann, J., Richardson, J.: Automatic certification of Kalman filters for reliable code generation. In: IEEE Aerospace Conference, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Egea, M., Rusu, V.: Formal executable semantics for conformance in the MDE framework. Innov. Syst. Softw. Eng. 6(1–2), 73–81 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Ermel, C., Hermann, F., Taentzer, G.: Information preserving bidirectional model transformations. In: Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE), pp. 72–86 (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fleurey, F., Baudry, B., Muller, P.-A., Le Traon, Y.: Towards dependable model transformations: qualifying input test data. In: Software and System Modeling. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fleurey, F., Steel, J., Baudry, B.: Validation in model-driven engineering: testing model transformations. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Model, Design and Validation, pp. 29–40. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    García, M., Möller, R.: Certification of transformation algorithms in model-driven software development. In: Software Engineering, pp. 107–118 (2007)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Giner, P., Pelechano, V.: Test-driven development of model transformations. In: 12th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), pp. 748–752 (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Goos, G.: Compiler verification and compiler architecture. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 65(2), 1 (2002). COCV’02, Compiler Optimization Meets Compiler Verification (Satellite Event of ETAPS 2002)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Harrison, R., Samaraweera, L., Dobie, M., Lewis, P.: Estimating the quality of functional programs: an empirical investigation. Inf. Softw. Technol. 37(12), 701–707 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hermann, F., Ehrig, H., Orejas, F., Czarnecki, K., Diskin, Z., Xiong, Y.: Correctness of model synchronization based on triple graph grammars. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, vol. 6981 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 668–682. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hoare, T.: The verifying compiler: a grand challenge for computing research. In: Hedin, G. (ed.) Compiler Construction, vol. 2622 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 262–272. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Holten, D., van Wijk, J.J.: Visual comparison of hierarchically organized data. Comput. Graph. Forum 27(3), 759–766 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Howard W. (1980) To H.B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda-Calculus, and Formalism, chapter The Formulae-as-types Notion of Construction, pp. 479–490. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hutchinson, J., Rouncefield, M., Whittle, J.: Model-driven engineering practices in industry. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’11, pp. 633–642. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., Rouncefield, M., Kristoffersen, S.: Empirical assessment of MDE in industry. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’11, pp. 471–480. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Izerrouken, N., Thirioux, X., Pantel, M., Strecker, M.: Certifying an automated code generator using formal tools: preliminary experiments in the GeneAuto project. In: Electronic Proceedings of 4th European Congress in Real-Time Sofware (ERTS’08) (2008)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jackson, E., Levendovszky, T., Balasubramanian, D.: Reasoning about metamodeling with formal specifications and automatic proofs. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, vol. 6981 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 653–667. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jackson, E.K., Kang, E., Dahlweid, M., Seifert, D., Santen, T.: Components, platforms and possibilities: towards generic automation for MDA. In: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Embedded Software, EMSOFT ’10, pp. 39–48. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jaffar, J., Maher, M., Marriott, K., Stuckey, P.: The semantics of constraint logic programs. J. Log. Program. 37(13), 1–46 (1998)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jayaraman, P., Whittle, J., Elkhodary, A., Gomaa, H.: Model composition in product lines and feature interaction detection using critical pair analysis. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D., Weil, F. (eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, vol. 4735 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 151–165. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I.: ATL: a model transformation tool. Sci. Comput. Program. 72(12), 31–39 (2008)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kapová, L., Goldschmidt, T., Becker, S., Henss, J.: Evaluating maintainability with code metrics for model-to-model transformations. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Quality of Software Architectures: research into Practice–Reality and Gaps, QoSA’10, pp. 151–166. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Karsai, G., Narayanan, A.: On the correctness of model transformations in the development of embedded systems. In: Kordon, F., Sokolsky, O. (eds.) Composition of Embedded Systems. Scientific and Industrial Issues, vol. 4888 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 1–18. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kolovos, D., Paige, R., Polack, F.: Model comparison: a foundation for model composition and model transformation testing. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Global Integrated Model Management (G@MMA’06), pp. 13–20. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kolovos, D., Paige, R., Rose, L., Polack, F.: The Epsilon Book. University of York, York (2009)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kübler, J., Goldschmidt, T.: A pattern mining approach using QVT. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Model Driven Architecture-Foundations and Applications, ECMDA-FA ’09, pp. 50–65. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Küster, J., Heckel, R., Engels, G.: Defining and validating transformations of UML models. In: IEEE Symposium on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments, pp. 145–152. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Küster, J.M.: Definition and validation of model transformations. Softw. Syst. Model. 5(3), 233–259 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Küster, J.M., Abd-El-Razik, M.: Validation of model transformations first experiences using a white box approach. In: Models in Software Engineering, pp. 193–204 (2007)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lamari, M.: Towards an automated test generation for the verification of model transformations. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC ’07), pp. 998–1005. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lamport, L.: Checking a multithreaded algorithm with \(^{+}\)CAL. In: Proceedings of 20th International Symposium on Distributed Computing, pp. 151–163. Springer, Berlin, Stockholm, September (2006)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lamport, L.: The PlusCal algorithm language. In: Proceedings of 6th International Colloquium on Theoretical Aspects of Computing, pp. 36–60, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, August (2009)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lano, K., Clark, D.: Model transformation specification and verification. In: The Eighth International Conference on Quality Software (QSIC ’08), pp. 45–54. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lano, K., Kolahdouz-Rahimi, S.: Specification and verification of model transformations using UML-RSDS. In: Méry, D., Merz, S. (eds.) Integrated Formal Methods, vol. 6396 of Lecture Notes in Computer, pp. 199–214. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lano, K., Kolahdouz-Rahimi, S.: Model-Driven Development of Model Transformations. In: Cabot, J., Visser, E. (eds.) Theory and Practice of Model Transformations (ICMT), vol. 6707 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 47–61. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lanza, M., Marinescu, R.: Object-Oriented Metrics in Practice: Using Software Metrics to Characterize, Evaluate, and Improve the Design of Object-Oriented Systems. Springer, Germany (2006)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lawley, M., Steel, J.: Practical declarative model transformation with Tefkat. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) Satellite Events at the MoDELS 2005 Conference, vol. 3844 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 139–150. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lin, Y., Zhang, J., Gray, J.: A testing framework for model transformations. In: Model-Driven Software Development-Research and Practice in Software Engineering, pp. 219–236. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lúcio, L., Barroca, B., Amaral, V.: A technique for automatic validation of model transformations. In: Petriu, D., Rouquette, N., Haugen, O. (eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, vol. 6394 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 136–150. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Mottu, J.-M., Baudry, B., Le Traon, Y.: Mutation analysis testing for model transformations. In: Model Driven Architecture–Foundations and Applications, Second European Conference, ECMDA-FA 2006, pp. 376–390. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mottu, J.-M., Baudry, B., Le Traon, Y.: Reusable MDA components: a testing-for-trust approach. In: Proceedings of the MoDELS/UML 2006, pp. 589–603. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Mottu, J.-M., Baudry, B., Le Traon, Y.: Model transformation testing: oracle issue. In: IEEE International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation Workshop (ICSTW ’08), pp. 105–112. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Namjoshi, K.S.: Certifying model checkers. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV ’01), pp. 2–13. Springer, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Narayanan, A., Karsai, G.: Towards verifying model transformations. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 211, 191–200 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Necula, G.C.: Proof-carrying code. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL ’97), pp. 106–119. ACM (1997)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Orejas, F., Wirsing, M.: On the specification and verification of model transformations. In: Palsberg, J. (eds) Semantics and Algebraic Specification, vol. 5700 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 140–161. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Pnueli, A., Shtrichman, O., Siegel, M.: The code validation tool CVT: automatic verification of a compilation process. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 2, 192–201 (1998)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Poernomo, I.: Proofs-as-model-transformations. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, ICMT ’08, pp. 214–228. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Poernomo, I., Terrell, J.: Correct-by-construction model transformations from partially ordered specifications in Coq. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods and Software Engineering, ICFEM’10, pp. 56–73. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Rahimi, S., Lano, K.: Integrating goal-oriented measurement for evaluation of model transformation. In: International Symposium on Computer Science and Software Engineering (CSSE), pp. 129–134. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Reynoso, L., Genero, M., Piattini, M., Manso, E.: Assessing the impact of coupling on the understandability and modifiability of OCL expressions within UML/OCL combined models. In: Software Metrics, 2005. 11th IEEE International, Symposium, pp. 10–14, September (2005)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    RTCA: DO-178B, Software Consideration in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification. Technical report, RTCA Inc (1992)Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Saeki, M., Kaiya, H.: Measuring model transformation in model driven development. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Information, Systems Engineering (CAiSE’07), pp. 77–80 (2007)Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Schumann, J., Fischer, B., Whalen, M., Whittle, J.: Certification support for automatically generated programs. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Sen, S., Baudry, B., Mottu, J.-M.: On combining multi-formalism knowledge to select models for model transformation testing. In: 1st International Conference on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation, pp. 328–337. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Sen, S., Baudry, B., Mottu, J.-M.: Automatic model generation strategies for model transformation testing. In: Paige, R. (ed.) Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, vol. 5563 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 148–164. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Staats, M., Heimdahl, M.: Partial translation verification for untrusted code-generators. In: International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods (ICFEM’08), pp. 226–237. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Stenzel, K., Moebius, N., Reif, W.: Formal verification of QVT transformations for code generation. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, vol. 6981 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 533–547. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Strecker, M.: Modeling and verifying graph transformations in proof assistants. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 203(1), 135–148 (2008)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Stürmer, I., Conrad, M., Doerr, H., Pepper, P.: Systematic testing of model-based code generators. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 33(9), 622–634 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Stürmer, I., Conrad, M., Fey, I., Dörr, H.: Experiences with model and autocode reviews in model-based software development. In: Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Software Engineering for Automotive systems (SEAS ’06), pp. 45–52. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Tisi, M., Jouault, F., Fraternali, P., Ceri, S., Bzivin, J.: On the use of higher-order model transformations. In: Paige, R., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) Model Driven Architecture—Foundations and Applications, vol. 5562 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 18–33. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    van Amstel, M., Bosems, S., Kurtev, I.: Performance in model transformations: experiments with ATL and QVT. In: Cabot, J., Visser, E. (eds.) Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, vol. 6707 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 198–212. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    van Amstel, M., Lange, C., van den Brand, M.: Metrics for analyzing the quality of model transformations. In: Proceedings of the 12th ECOOP Workshop on Quantitative Approaches on Object Oriented Software Engineering (QAOOSE08), pp. 41–51. Paphos, Cyprus (2008)Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    van Amstel, M., van den Brand, M.: Quality Assessment of ATL Model Transformations using Metrics, Technical Report. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eidhoven University of Technology (2010)Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    van Amstel, M.F.: The right tool for the right job: assessing model transformation quality. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 34th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference Workshops, COMPSACW ’10, pp. 69–74. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2010)Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Van Amstel, M.F., Van Den Brand, M.G.J.: Model Transformation Analysis: Staying ahead of the maintenance nightmare. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, ICMT’11, pp. 108–122. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Van Baalen, J., Robinson, P., Lowry, M., Pressburger, T.: Explaining synthesized software. In: Proceedings of 13th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 1998, pp. 240–248 (1998)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Varró, D., Pataricza, A.: Automated formal verification of model transformations. In: Jürjens, J., Rumpe, B., France, R., Fernandez, E.B. (eds.) CSDUML 2003: Critical Systems Development in UML; Proceedings of the UML’03 Workshop, number TUM-I0323 in Technical Report, pp. 63–78. Technische Universität München, September (2003)Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Varró, D., Varró-Gyapay, S., Ehrig, H., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Termination analysis of model transformations by Petri nets. In: ICGT, pp. 260–274 (2006)Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Vignaga, A.: Measuring Atl Transformations. Technical report, MaTE. Department of Computer Science, Universidad de Chile (2009)Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Vignaga, A.: Metrics for Measuring ATL Model Transformations. Technical report. MaTE, Department of Computer Science, Universidad de Chile (2009)Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Wang, J., Kim, S.-K., Carrington, D.: Verifying metamodel coverage of model transformations. In: Australian Software Engineering Conference, pp. 270–282. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Wang, J., Kim, S.-K., Carrington, D.: Automatic generation of test models for model transformations. In: 19th Australian Conference on Software Engineering (ASWEC’08), pp. 432–440. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Whittle, J., Gajanovic, B.: Model transformations should be more than just model generators. In: Satellite Events at the MoDELS 2005 Conference, pp. 32–38. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Whittle, J., Van Baalen, J., Schumann, J., Robinson, P., Pressburger, T., Penix, J., Oh, P., Lowry, M., Brat, G.: Amphion/NAV: deductive synthesis of state estimation software. In: Proceedings of 16th Annual International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE’01), pp. 395–399. IEEE (2001)Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Kusel, A., Retschitzegger, W., Schoenboeck, J., Schwinger, W.: Right or wrong?—verification of model transformations using colored Petri nets. In: Proceedings of the 9th OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modelling (2009)Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Zelenov, S., Silakov, D., Petrenko, A., Conrad, M., Fey, I.: Automatic test generation for model-based code generators. In: 2nd International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation (ISoLA 2006), pp. 75–81. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information SciencesUniversiti Teknologi PETRONASTronohMalaysia
  2. 2.School of Computing and Communications, InfoLab21Lancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations