Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 647–684 | Cite as

Model transformation intents and their properties

  • Levi Lúcio
  • Moussa Amrani
  • Juergen Dingel
  • Leen Lambers
  • Rick Salay
  • Gehan M. K. Selim
  • Eugene Syriani
  • Manuel Wimmer
Regular Paper

Abstract

The notion of model transformation intent is proposed to capture the purpose of a transformation. In this paper, a framework for the description of model transformation intents is defined, which includes, for instance, a description of properties a model transformation has to satisfy to qualify as a suitable realization of an intent. Several common model transformation intents are identified, and the framework is used to describe six of them in detail. A case study from the automotive industry is used to demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed framework for identifying crucial properties of model transformations with different intents and to illustrate the wide variety of model transformation intents that an industrial model-driven software development process typically encompasses.

Keywords

Model transformation Intent Property Verification Description framework 

References

  1. 1.
    Adrion, W.R., Branstad, M.A., Cherniavsky, J.C.: Validation, verification, and testing of computer software. ACM Comput. Surv. 14(2), 159–192 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agrawal, A., Karsai, G., Kalmar, Z., Neema, S., Shi, F., Vizhanyo, A.: The design of a language for model transformations. Softw. Syst. Model. 5(3), 261–288 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akehurst, D., Kent, S.: A relational approach to defining transformations in a metamodel. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language (UML), pp. 243–258. Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amrani, M., Dingel, J., Lambers, L., Lúcio, L., Salay, R., Selim, G., Syriani, E., Wimmer, M.: Towards a model transformation intent catalog. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Analysis of Model Transformations (AMT), pp. 3–8. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amrani, M., Lúcio, 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 First Workshop on Verification and Validation of Model Transformations ( VOLT), pp. 921–928. IEEE Computer Society (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asztalos, M., Syriani, E., Wimmer, M., Kessentini, M.: Simplifying model transformation chains by rule composition. In: Models in Software Engineering—Workshops and Symposia at MODELS 2010, Reports and Revised Selected Papers, LNCS, vol. 6627, pp. 293–307 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    AUTOSAR: http://www.autosar.org (2010)
  8. 8.
    Bae, J.H., Lee, K., Chae, H.S.: Modularization of the UML metamodel using model slicing. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Information Technology ( ITNG), pp. 1253–1254. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baresi, L., Heckel, R., Thöne, S., Varró, D.: Style-based modeling and refinement of service-oriented architectures. Softw. Syst. Model. 5, 187–207 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bergmann, G., Ujhelyi, Z., Ráth, I., Varró, D.: A graph query language for EMF models. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Model Transformations ( ICMT), LNCS, vol. 6707, pp. 167–182. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bézivin, J., Büttner, F., Gogolla, M., Jouault, F., Kurtev, I., Lindow, A.: Model transformations? Transformation models! In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems ( Models) (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bézivin, J., Rumpe, B., Tratt, L.: Model transformation in practice workshop announcement. http://sosym.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/events/mtip05/long_cfp.pdf (2005)
  13. 13.
    Biermann, E., Ehrig, K., Ermel, C., Hurrelmann, J.: Generation of simulation views for domain specific modeling languages based on the eclipse modeling framework. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering ( ASE), pp. 625–629. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Börger, E., Stärk, R.: Abstract State Machines: A Method for High-Level System Design and Analysis. Springer, Berlin (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mc Brien, P., Poulovassi, A.: Automatic migration and wrapping of database applications—a schema transformation approach. In: Akoka, J., Bouzeghoub, M., Comyn Wattiau, I., M’etais, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER), LNCS, vol. 1782, pp. 99–114. Springer, Berlin (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bruneliére, H., Cabot, J., Clasen, C., Jouault, F., Bézivin, J.: Towards model driven tool interoperability: bridging eclipse and microsoft modeling tools. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Modelling Foundations and Applications ( ECMFA), (LNCS), vol. 6138, pp. 32–47 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Büttner, F., Egea, M., Cabot, J., Gogolla, M.: Verification of ATL transformations using transformation models and model finders. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods ( ICFEM), ( LNCS), vol. 7635, pp. 198–213. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Büttner, F., Egea, M., Cabot, J.: On verifying ATL transformations using ’off-the-shelf’ SMT solvers. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems ( Models), pp. 432–448. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Calegari, D., Szasz, N.: Verification of model transformations: a survey of the state-of-the-art. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 292, 5–25 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cariou, E., Belloir, N., Barbier, F., Djemam, N.: OCL contracts for the verification of model transformations. ECEASST 24 (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cicchetti, A., Di Ruscio, D., Eramo, R., Pierantonio, A.: Automating co-evolution in model-driven engineering. In: Proceedings of the International IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), pp. 222–231. IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clark, T., Evans, A., Sammut, P., Willans, J.: Applied Metamodelling: A Foundation for Language Driven Development. Ceteva, Sheffield (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clarke, E.M., Wing, J.M.: Formal methods: state of the art and future directions. ACM Comput. Surv. 28(4), 626–643 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clavel, M., Duran, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Marti Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: All About Maude. A High-Performance Logical Framework, LNCS, vol. 4350. Springer, Berlin (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst. J. 45(3), 621–645 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dalal, S.R., Jain, A., Karunanithi, N., Leaton, J.M., Lott, C.M., Patton, G.C., Horowitz, B.M.: Model-based testing in practice. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 285–294. ACM Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Deltombe, G., Le Goaer, O., Barbier, F.: Bridging KDM and ASTM for model-driven software modernization. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering & Knowledge Engineering (SEKE), pp. 517–524 (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Denil, J.: Design, verification and deployment of software-intensive systems: a multi-paradigm modelling approach. Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit Antwerpen (2013). http://msdl.cs.mcgill.ca/people/joachim/academic
  30. 30.
    Denil, J., Cicchetti, A., Biehl, M., De Meulenaere, P., Eramo, R., Demeyer, S., Vangheluwe, H.: Automatic deployment space exploration using refinement transformations. In: Amaral, V., Hardebolle, C., Vangueluwe, H., Lengyel, L., Bunus, P. (eds.) Recent Advances in Multi-paradigm Modelling, vol. 50, Electronic Communications of the EASST, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dorf, R.C.: Modern Control Systems, 12th edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc, Boston (2011)MATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    D’Silva, V., Kroening, D., Weissenbacher, G.: A survey of automated techniques for formal software verification. IEEE Trans. CAD Integr. Circuits Syst. 27(7), 1165–1178 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ducasse, S., Gîrba, T.: Using smalltalk as a reflective executable meta-language. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (Models), pp. 604–618 (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Engel, K.D., Paige, R., Kolovos, D.: Using a model merging language for reconciling model versions. In: Rensink, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the European Conference on Model Driven Architecture-Foundations and Applications (ECMFA), LNCS, vol. 4066, pp. 143–157. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    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: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language ( UML), pp. 323–337 (2000)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ermel, C., Ehrig, H.: Behavior-preserving simulation-to-animation model and rule transformations. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 213(1), 55–74 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Del Fabro, M.D., Valduriez, P.: Towards the efficient development of model transformations using model weaving and matching transformations. Softw. Syst. Model. 8(3), 305–324 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fischer, T., Niere, J., Turunski, L., Zündorf, A.: Story diagrams: a new graph rewrite language based on the unified modelling language and java. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Theory and Application of Graph Transformations (TAGT), LNCS, vol. 1764, pp. 296–309. Springer, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fleiss, J.L.: Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol. Bull. 76(5), 378–382 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fowler, M.: Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gabmeyer, S., Brosch, P., Seidl, M.: A classification of model checking-based verification approaches for software models. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Verification of Model Transformation (VOLT) (2013)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gardner, T., Griffin, C., Koehler, J., Hauser, R.: A review of OMG MOF 2.0 query/views /transformations submissions and recommendations towards the final standard. In: Proceedings of the MetaModelling for MDA Workshop, pp. 178–197 (2003)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gargantini, A., Riccobene, E., Scandurra, P.: Combining formal methods and MDE techniques for model-driven system design and analysis. JAS 3(1–2), 1–18 (2010)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gessenharter, D.: Mapping the UML2 semantics of associations to a java code generation model. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 813–827. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Giese, H., Levendovszky, T., Vangheluwe, H.: Summary of the workshop on multi-paradigm modeling: concepts and tools. In: Models in Software Engineering: Workshops and Symposia at MoDELS 2006, Reports and Revised Selected Papers, LNCS, vol. 4364. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gogolla, M., Vallecillo, A.: Tractable model transformation testing. In: Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Modelling Foundations and Applications (ECMFA), LNCS, vol. 6698, pp. 221–235. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Griswold, W.G.: Program restructuring as an aid to software maintenance. Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington (1991)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Object Management Group: MDA Guide (version 1.0.1) (2003)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Object Management Group: Mof Qvt: Query/View/ Transformation (2008)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language (UML) 2.4.1 Superstructure (2011)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Guerra, Esther, de Lara, Juan, Wimmer, Manuel, Kappel, Gerti, Kusel, Angelika, Retschitzegger, Werner, Schönböck, Johannes, Schwinger, Wieland: Automated verification of model transformations based on visual contracts. Autom. Softw. Eng. 20(1), 5–46 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: Model view management with triple graph transformation systems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Graph Transformation (ICGT), LNCS, vol. 4178, pp. 351–366. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: Event-driven grammars: relating abstract and concrete levels of visual languages. J. Softw. Syst. Model. 6(6), 317–347 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Harel, D., Rumpe, B.: Modeling Languages: Syntax, Semantics and All That Stuff, Part I: The Basic Stuff. Tech. Rep, Weizmann Institute of Sience (2000)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Harman, M., Binkley, D., Danicic, S.: Amorphous program slicing. In: Software Focus, pp. 70–79. IEEE Computer Society Press (1997)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Iacob, M.E., Steen, M.W.A., Heerink, L.: Reusable model transformation patterns. In: Proceedings of EDOCW’08, pp. 1–10 (2008)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Izquierdo, J.L.C., Molina, J.G.: Extracting models from source code in software modernization. Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM), pp. 1–22 (2012)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jouault, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I.: TCS: a DSL for the specification of textual concrete syntaxes in model engineering. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering. GPCE ’06, pp. 249–254. ACM, Portland (2006)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kastenberg, H., Rensink, A.: Model checking dynamic states in groove. In: Model Checking Software (Spin), LNCS, vol. 3925, pp. 299–305. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kelsen, P., Ma, Q., Glodt, C.: Models within models: taming model complexity using the sub-model lattice. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundational Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE), pp. 171–185. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kern, H.: The Interchange of (meta)models between MetaEdit+ and eclipse EMF using M3-level-based bridges. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling (DSM) (2009)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kern, H., Hummel, A., Kühne, S.: Towards a comparative analysis of meta-metamodels. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling (DSM) (2011)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kern, H., Kühne, S.: Model interchange between ARIS and eclipse EMF. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling (DSM) (2007)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kern, H., Kühne, S.: Integration of microsoft visio and eclipse modeling framework using M3-level-based bridges. In: Proceedings of the ECMDA Workshop on Model-Driven Tool & Process Integration (2009)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kilov, H.: From semantic to object-oriented data modeling. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on System Integration, pp. 385–393 (1990)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kleppe, A.G., Warmer, J., Bast, W.: MDA Explained. The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Koch, N., Knapp, A., Zhang, G., Baumeister, H.: UML-based web engineering. Web Engineering: Modelling and Implementing Web Applications, pp. 157–191 (2008)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    König, B., Kozioura, V.: Augur 2-A new version of a tool for the analysis of graph transformation systems. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 211, 201–210 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kühne, T.: Matters of (meta-) modeling. Softw. Syst. Model. 5, 369–385 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kühne, T., Mezei, G., Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H., Wimmer, M.: Systematic transformation development. EcEasst 21 (2009)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kühne, T., Mezei, G., Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H., Wimmer, M.: Explicit transformation modeling. In: Models in Software Engineering—Workshops and Symposia at MODELS 2009, Reports and Revised Selected Papers, Lncs, vol. 6002, pp. 240–255. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Axel van Lamsweerde: Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE) (2001)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Lano, K., Kolahdouz Rahimi, S.: Slicing techniques for UML models. JOT 10, 1–49 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    de Lara, J., Guerra, E., Boronat, A., Heckel, R., Torrini, P.: Graph transformation for domain-specific discrete event time simulation. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Graph Transformations (ICGT), Lncs, vol. 6372, pp. 266–281. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    de Lara, J., Taentzer, G.: Automated model transformation and its validation using AToM3 and AGG. Diagrammatic Representation and Inference (Diagrams), pp. 182–198 (2004)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    de Lara, J., Vangheluwe, H.: Defining visual notations and their manipulation through meta-modelling and graph transformation. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 15(3–4), 309–330 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Lúcio, L., Amrani, M., Dingel, J., Lambers, L., Salay, R., Selim, G., Syriani, E., Wimmer, M.: Additional material for the paper “Model Transformation Intents and Their Properties”. http://msdl.cs.mcgill.ca/people/levi/transformation_intents/material (2014)
  79. 79.
    Lúcio, L., Denil, J., Mustafiz, S., Vangheluwe, H.: An overview of model transformations for a simple automotive power window. Tech. Rep. SOCS-TR-2012.1, McGill University (2012)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Lúcio, L., Mustafiz, S., Denil, J., Vangheluwe, H., Jukss, M.: FTG+PM: an integrated framework for investigating model transformation chains. In: System Design Languages ( Sdl) Forum: Model-Driven Dependability Engineering, LNCS, vol. 7916, pp. 182–202. Springer, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Lúcio, L., Vangheluwe, H.: Model transformations to verify model transformations. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Verification of Model Transformations (VOLT) (2013)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Lúcio, L., Vangheluwe, H.: Symbolic execution for the verification of model transformations. Tech. Rep. SOCS-TR-2013.2, McGill University (2013). http://msdl.cs.mcgill.ca/people/levi/files/MTSymbExec.pdf
  83. 83.
    Mannadiar, R., Vangheluwe, H.: Modular synthesis of mobile device applications from domain-specific models. In: Model-Based Methodologies for Pervasive and Embedded Software Workshop (2010)Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Mayerhofer, T., Langer, P., Wimmer, M.: Towards xMOF: executable DSMLs based on fUML. In: Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling (DSM’12) (2012)Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Mens, T., Van Gorp, P.: A taxonomy of model transformation. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 152, 125–142 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Selim, G.M.K., Cordy, J.R., Dingel, J.: Analysis of model transformations. Tech. Rep. 2012–592, Queen’s University (2012)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Selim, G.M.K., Cordy, J.R., Dingel, J.: Model transformation testing: the state of the art. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on the Analysis of Model Transformations (AMT) (2012)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Mosterman, P.J., Vangheluwe, H.: Computer automated multi-paradigm modeling: an introduction. Simulation 80(9), 433–450 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Muller, P.A., Fleurey, F., Jézéquel, J.M.: Weaving executability into object-oriented meta-languages. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS), LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 264–278. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Muller, P.A., Fondement, F., Baudry, B., Combemale, B.: Modeling modeling modeling. Softw. Syst. Model. 11, 1–13 (2010)Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Muller, P.A., Hassenforder, M.: HUTN as a bridge between ModelWare and grammarWare—an experience report. In: Proceedings of the Workshop in Software Model Engineering Wisme (2005)Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Mustafiz, S., Denil, J., Lúcio, L., Vangheluwe, H.: The FTG+PM framework for multi-paradigm modelling: an automotive case study. In: Proceedings of the Multi-Paradigm Modelling Workshop (MPM). ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Narayanan, A., Karsai, G.: Towards verifying model transformations. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 211, 191–200 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Narayanan, A., Karsai, G.: Verifying model transformations by structural correspondence. Electronic Communications of the European Association of Software Science and Technology (EASST) 10 (2008)Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Padberg, J.: Categorical approach to horizontal structuring and refinement of high-level replacement systems. Appl. Categ. Struct. 7, 371–403 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Paige, R.F., Kolovos, D.S., Polack, F.A.C.: Refinement via consistency checking in MDA. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 137(2), 151–161 (2005)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Peterson, J.: Petri nets. ACM Comput. Surv. 9(3), 223–252 (1977)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Rahim, L.A., Whittle, J.: A survey of approaches for verifying model transformations. Software and Systems Modeling (SoSym), pp. 1–26 (2013)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Rensink, A.: The groove simulator: a tool for state space generation. In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance (AGTIVE), LNCS, vol. 3062, pp. 479–485 (2003)Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Rivera, J.E., Durán, F., Vallecillo, A.: On the behavioral semantics of real-time domain specific visual languages. In: Workshop Proceedings of WRLA’10 @ ETAPS’10, pp. 174–190 (2010)Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Rivera, J., Guerra, E., de Lara, J., Vallecillo, A.: Analyzing rule-based behavioral semantics of visual modeling languages with maude. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Language Engineering (SLE), pp. 54–73. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Romero, J.R., Rivera, J.E., Duran, F., Vallecillo, A.: Formal and tool support for model driven engineering with maude. J. Object Technol. 6(6), 187–207 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.: The epsilon object language (EOL). In: Proceedings of ECMDA-FA’06, pp. 128–142 (2006)Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Schätz, B., Holzl, F., Lundkvist, T.: Design-space exploration through constraint-based model-transformation. In: Proceedings of the international conference and workshops on engineering of computer based systems, ECBS’10, pp. 173–182 (2010)Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Scheidgen, M., Fischer, J.: Human comprehensible and machine processable specifications of operational semantics. In: Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Model Driven Architecture Foundations and Applications (ECMDA-FA’07), LNCS, vol. 4530, pp. 157–171. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Scholz, P.: A refinement calculus for statecharts. In: E. Astesiano (ed.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE), LNCS, vol. 1382, pp. 285–301. Springer, Berlin (1998)Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Sen, S., Moha, N., Baudry, B., Jézéquel, J.M.: Meta-model pruning. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (Models), pp. 32–46. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Sendall, S., Kozaczynski, W.: Model transformation: the heart and soul of model-driven software development. IEEE Softw. 20(5), 42–45 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Shannon, R., Johannes, J.D.: Systems simulation: the art and science. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 6(10), 723–724 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Stahl, T., Voelter, M., Czarnecki, K.: Model-Driven Software Development—Technology, Engineering, Management. Wiley, London (2006)Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Van der Straeten, R., Jonckers, V., Mens, T.: A formal approach to model refactoring and model refinement. Softw. Syst. Model. 6, 139–162 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H.: Programmed graph rewriting with time for simulation-based design. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Theory and Practice of Model Transformations (ICMT), LNCS, vol. 5063, pp. 91–106. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Syriani, E.: A multi-paradigm foundation for model transformation language engineering. Ph.D. thesis, McGill University (2011)Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Syriani, E., Ergin, H.: Operational semantics of UML activity diagram: an application in project management. In: Proceedings of RE 2012 Workshops. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Syriani, E., Gray, J., Vangheluwe, H.: Modeling a model transformation language. In: Domain Engineering: Product Lines, Conceptual Models, and Languages. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H.: DEVS as a semantic domain for programmed graph transformation, chap. 1, pp. 3–28. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2010)Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H.: A modular timed model transformation language. Softw. Syst. Model. 11, 1–28 (2011)Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H., Mannadiar, R., Hansen, C., Van Mierlo, S., Ergin, H.: AToMPM: a web-based modeling environment. In: MODELS’13 Demonstrations. CEUR (2013)Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Tisi, M., Jouault, F., Fraternali, P., Ceri, S., Bézivin, J.: On the use of higher-order model transformations. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Model Driven Architecture—Foundations and Applications ECMDA-FA, LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 18–33. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Torlak, E., Jackson, D.: Kodkod: a relational model finder. In: Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 632–647. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Tratt, L.: Model transformation and tool integration. Softw. Syst. Model. 4, 112–122 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Tri, D., Tho, Q.: Systematic diagram refinement for code generation in SEAM. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Knowledge and Systems Engineering (KSE), pp. 203–210. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Troya, J., Rivera, J.E., Vallecillo, A.: On the specification of non-functional properties of systems by observation. In: Models in Software Engineering, Workshops and Symposia at MODELS 2009, Reports and Revised Selected Papers, LNCS, vol. 6002, pp. 296–309. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Troya, Javier, Vallecillo, Antonio, Durán, Francisco, Zschaler, Steffen: Model-driven performance analysis of rule-based domain specific visual models. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(1), 88–110 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Vallecillo, A., Gogolla, M.: Typing model transformations using tracts. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Theory and Practice of Model Transformations (ICMT), LNCS, vol. 7307, pp. 56–71. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Varró, D., Varró Gyapay, S., Ehrig, H., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Termination analysis of model transformations by petri nets. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Graph Transformations (ICGT), pp. 260–274. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Varró, D., Pataricza, A.: Automated formal verification of model transformations. In: Jürjens, J., Rumpe, B., France, R., Fernandez, E.B. (eds.) Proceedings of the UML’03 Workshop CSDUML 2003: Critical Systems Development in UML, TUM-I0323, pp. 63–78. Technische Universität München (2003)Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Viehstaedt, G., Minas, M.: DiaGen: a generator for diagram editors based on a hypergraph model. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Next Generation Information Technologies and Systems, pp. 155–162 (1995)Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Visser, E.: A survey of strategies in rule-based program transformation systems. J. Symb. Comput. 40, 831–873 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Kusel, A., Retschitzegger, W., Schönböck, J., Schwinger, W.: Right or wrong?—Verification of model transformations using colored petri nets. In: Proceedings of the 9th OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling (DSM) (2009)Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Wimmer, M., Kramler, G.: Bridging grammarware and modelware. In: Proceedings of MoDELS Satellite Events, pp. 159–168 (2005)Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Winkelmann, J., Taentzer, G., Ehrig, K., Küster, J.M.: Translation of restricted OCL constraints into graph constraints for generating meta model instances by graph grammars. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 211, 159–170 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Withall, S.: Software Requirement Patterns. Microsoft Press, Redmond (2007)Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Yu, E.S., Mylopoulos, J.: Understanding “Why” in software process modelling, analysis, and design. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 159–168 (1994)Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Zhang, J., Lin, Y., Gray, J.: Generic and domain-specific model refactoring using a model transformation engine. In: Volume II of Research and Practice in Software Engineering, pp. 199–218. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Levi Lúcio
    • 1
  • Moussa Amrani
    • 2
  • Juergen Dingel
    • 3
  • Leen Lambers
    • 4
  • Rick Salay
    • 5
  • Gehan M. K. Selim
    • 3
  • Eugene Syriani
    • 6
  • Manuel Wimmer
    • 7
  1. 1.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.University of LuxembourgLuxembourgLuxembourg
  3. 3.Queen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  4. 4.Hasso Plattner InstituteUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  5. 5.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  6. 6.University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA
  7. 7.Vienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations