Modelling and analysis using GROOVE

  • Amir Hossein Ghamarian
  • Maarten de MolEmail author
  • Arend Rensink
  • Eduardo Zambon
  • Maria Zimakova
Regular Paper


In this paper we present case studies that describe how the graph transformation tool groove has been used to model problems from a wide variety of domains. These case studies highlight the wide applicability of groove in particular, and of graph transformation in general. They also give concrete templates for using groove in practice. Furthermore, we use the case studies to analyse the main strong and weak points of groove.


Graph-based modelling Graph transformation Tool application Model transformation State space exploration 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aksit, M., Rensink, A., Staijen, T.: A graph-transformation-based simulation approach for analysing aspect interference on shared join points. In: AOSD ’09, Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development, pp 39–50. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arbab F.: Reo: A channel-based coordination model for component composition. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 14(03), 329–366 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balasubramanian, D., Narayanan, A., van Buskirk, C., Karsai, G.: The graph rewriting and transformation language: great. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Graph Based Tools (GraBaTs 2006). ECEASST., vol. 1. EASST (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergmann, G., Horváth, Á., Ráth, I., Varró, D.: A benchmark evaluation of incremental pattern matching in graph transformation. In: Ehrig, H., Heckel, R., Rozenberg, G., Taentzer, G., (eds.) International Conference on Graph Transformations (ICGT). LNCS., vol. 5214. pp 396–410. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang E., Roberts R.: An improved algorithm for decentralized extrema-finding in circular configurations of processes. Comm. ACM 22(5), 281–283 (1979)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ciraci, S., van den Broek, P., Aksit, M.: Framework for computer-aided evolution of object-oriented designs. In: 32nd Annual IEEE International Computer Software and Applications. COMPSAC ’08, pp 757–764 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crouzen P., van de Pol J.C., Rensink A.: Applying formal methods to gossiping networks with mCRL and groove. ACM SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev. 36(3), 7–16 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Lara, J., Vangheluwe, H.: atom3 : a tool for multi-formalism and meta-modeling. In: Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE). LNCS., vol. 2306, pp 174–188 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Mol, M.J., Zimakova, M.V.: A groove solution for the bpmn to bpel model transformation. Technical Report TR-CTIT-09-31, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, University of Twente, Enschede (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dikmans, L.: Transforming bpmn into bpel: Why and How. Oracle Technology Network (2008).
  11. 11.
    Dimkov, T.: Portunes security framework.
  12. 12.
    Dimkov, T., Pieters, W. P. H.: Portunes: representing attack scenarios spanning through the physical, digital and social domain. In: ARSPA-WITS, Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Engels, G., Hausmann, J.H., Heckel, R., Sauer, S.: Dynamic Meta-Modeling: a graphical approach to the operational semantics of behavioral diagrams in uml. In: Evans, A. Kent, S. B.S., ed.: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on the Unified Modeling Language (UML 2000), York (UK), pp 323–337. Springer, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    The FUJABA Toolsuite. (2006).
  15. 15.
    Geiger, L., Zündorf, A.: FUJABA case studies for GraBaTs 2008—lessons learned. Software Tools for Technology Transfer. STTT 12(3–4), pp 287–304 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Geiß, R., Batz, G.V., Grund, D., Hack, S., Szalkowski, A.: GRGEN: a fast SPO-based graph rewriting tool. In: Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Montanari, U., Ribeiro, L., Rozenberg, G. (eds) International Conference on Graph Transformations (ICGT). LNCS, vol. 4178, pp 383–397. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    5th International Workshop on Graph-Based Tools (the contest). (2009).
  18. 18.
    Hausmann, J.H.: Dynamic Meta Modeling: A Semantics Description Technique for Visual Modeling Languages. PhD thesis, University of Paderborn, Germany (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heckel R.: Graph transformation in a nutshell. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 148(1), 187–198 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horváth, Á., Bergmann, G., Ráth, I., Varró, D.: Experimental assessment of combining pattern matching strategies with VIATRA. Software Tools for Technology Transfer. STTT 12(3–4), pp 211–230 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Horváth, Á., Varró, G., Varró, D.: Generic search plans for matching advanced graph patterns. In: Ehrig, K., Giese, H. (eds) Graph Transformation and Visual Modelling Techniques (GT-VMT). Electronic Communications of the EASST, vol. 6 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kastenberg, H., Kleppe, A., Rensink, A.: Defining object-oriented execution semantics using graph transformations. In: Gorrieri R., Wehrheim H. (eds.) Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems (FMOODS). LNCS, vol. 4037, pp. 186–201. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    König, B., Kozioura, V. (2008) augur—a new version of a tool for the analysis of graph transformation systems. ENTCS 211 201–210Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krause C., Maraikar Z., Lazovik A., Arbab F.: Modeling dynamic reconfigurations in Reo using high-level replacement systems. Sci. Comput. Program. 76(1), 23–36 (2011)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mészáros, T., Mezei, G., Levendovszky, T., Asztalos, M.: Manual and automated performance optimization of model transformation systems. Software Tools for Technology Transfer. STTT 12(3–4), pp 231–243 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Object Management Group: Business Process Model and Notation, V1.2 (2009).
  27. 27.
    Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards: Web Services Business Process Execution Language, V2.0 (2007).
  28. 28.
    Ouyang, C., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A., van der Aalst, W.: Pattern-based translation of bpmn process models to bpel web services. Int. J Web Serv. Res. (JWSR) 5(1), (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ouyang, C., van der Aalst, W., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.: Translating bpmn to bpel. Quensland University of Technology, Brisbase, Australia. E-Print, revised version (2006).
  30. 30.
    Rensink, A.: The groove simulator: A tool for state space generation. In: Pfaltz, J.L., Nagl, M., Böhlen, B., (eds.) Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance, (AGTIVE). LNCS, vol. 3062, pp. 479–485, Springer, Berlin (2004).
  31. 31.
    Rensink, A.: Representing first-order logic using graphs. In: Ehrig, H.,Engels, G., Parisi-Presicce, F., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) International Conference on Graph Transformations (ICGT). LNCS, vol. 3256, pp. 319–335. Springer, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rensink, A., Distefano, D.S.: Abstract graph transformation. In: Mukhopadhyay, S., Roychoudhury, A., Yang, Z. (eds.) Software Verification and Validation, Manchester. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 157, pp. 39–59. Elsevier (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rensink, A., Kuperus, J.H.: Repotting the geraniums: on nested graph transformation rules. In: Boronat, A., Heckel, R. (eds.) Graph transformation and visual modelling techniques (GT-VMT). Electronic Communications of the EASST., EASST, vol. 18 (2009)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rensink A., Van Gorp P.: Graph transformation tool contest 2008. Software Tools for Technology Transfer. STTT 12(3–4), 171–181 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schürr, A., Winter, A.J., Zündorf, A.: The PROGRES approach: language and environment. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Handbook of graph grammars and computing by graph transformation: applications, languages, and tools. vol. 2, pp. 487–550. World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., (1999)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Smelik, R., Rensink, A., Kastenberg, H.: Specification and construction of control flow semantics. In: Grundy, J., Howse, J., eds.: Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), pp. 65–72. IEEE Computer Society Press, Brighton, UK, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Soltenborn, C.: Analysis of uml Workflow diagrams with dynamic Meta Modeling Techniques. Master’s thesis, University of Paderborn, Germany (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Taentzer, G.: AGG: A graph transformation environment for modeling and validation of software. In: Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance, (AGTIVE). LNCS, vol. 3062, Springer (2004) 446–453Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Varró, D., Balogh, A.: The model transformation language of the VIATRA2 framework. Sci. Comput. Progr. 68(3), 187–207 (2007). Scholar
  40. 40.
    Visser W., Havelund K., Brat G.P., Park S.: Model checking programs. Autom. Softw. Eng. 10(2), 203–232 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Visual Modeling and Transformation System (2008).
  42. 42.
    W3C: XSL Transformations (XSLT), V1.0, Recommendation. (1999). See

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amir Hossein Ghamarian
    • 1
  • Maarten de Mol
    • 1
    Email author
  • Arend Rensink
    • 1
  • Eduardo Zambon
    • 1
  • Maria Zimakova
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations