A Comparison of Configuration Techniques for Model Transformations

  • Dennis Wagelaar
  • Ragnhild Van Der Straeten
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4066)


MDA generally involves applying multiple model transformations. These transformations need to be applied in a particular configuration, depending on the targeted platform. Several techniques exist to manage the configuration of various software elements or components. These techniques focus on the composition rules of the various elements. A well-known application area of such techniques are Software Product Lines, in which the various features that make up a software product need to be configured. In this paper, we will investigate how several of these techniques can be applied to manage the configuration of model transformations in an MDA context.


Feature Model Model Transformation Description Logic Software Product Line Object Management Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Mens, T., Taentzer, G., Runge, O.: Detecting Structural Refactoring Conflicts Using Critical Pair Analysis. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 127, 113–128 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stefik, M.: Introduction to Knowledge Systems. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. The SEI Series in Software Engineering. Addison Wesley Professional, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McDermott, J.: XSEL: a computer sales person’s assistant. In: Hayes, J.E., Michie, D., Pao, Y.-H. (eds.) Proceedings of the Tenth Machine Intelligence Workshop, held at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, USA, Ellis Horwood, pp. 325–338 (1982)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deursen, A.v., Klint, P., Visser, J.: Domain-Specific Languages: An Annotated Bibliography. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 35, 26–36 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brand, M.v.d., Deursen, A.v., Heering, J., Jong, H.A.d., Jonge, M.d., Kuipers, T., Klint, P., Moonen, L., Olivier, P.A., Scheerder, J., Vinju, J.J., Visser, E., Visser, J.: The ASF+SDF Meta-environment: A Component-Based Language Development Environment. In: Wilhelm, R. (ed.) CC 2001 and ETAPS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2027, pp. 365–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Object Management Group, Inc.: Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Core Specification, Version 2.0, Available Specification, ptc/04-10-15 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Budinsky, F., Steinberg, D., Merks, E., Ellersick, R., Grose, T.J.: Eclipse Modeling Framework. The Eclipse Series. Addison Wesley Professional, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bravenboer, M., Dam, A.v., Olmos, K., Visser, E.: Program Transformation with Scoped Dynamic Rewrite Rules. Fundamenta Informaticae 69, 1–56 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming Models with ATL. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 128–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Object Management Group, Inc.: OCL 2.0 Specification, Version 2.0, ptc/2005-06-06 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Nowak, W., Peterson, S.: Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Technical report CMU/SEI-90-TR-021, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coplien, J., Hoffman, D., Weiss, D.: Commonality and Variability in Software Engineering. IEEE Software 15, 37–45 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., Eisenecker, U.W.: Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 10, 7–29 (2005); Special Issue on Software Variability: Process and ManagementCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., Eisenecker, U.W.: Staged configuration through specialization and multilevel configuration of feature models. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 10, 143–169 (2005); Special Issue on Software Product LinesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deursen, A.v., Klint, P.: Domain-Specific Language Design Requires Feature Descriptions. Journal of Computing and Information Technology 10, 1–17 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reiff-Marganiec, S., Ryan, M. (eds.): Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems (ICFI 2005), Leicester, UK. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wagelaar, D., Jonckers, V.: Explicit Platform Models for MDA. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 367–381. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith, M.K., Welty, C., McGuinness, D.L.: OWL Web Ontology Language Guide. World Wide Web Consortium (2004), W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004),
  21. 21.
    Dan Brickley, R.G.: RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. World Wide Web Consortium. (2004), W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004),
  22. 22.
    Object Management Group, Inc.: MOF 2.0/XMI Mapping Specification, Version 2.1, formal/05-09-01 (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Batory, D., Sarvela, J.N., Rauschmayer, A.: Scaling Step-Wise Refinement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30, 355–371 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis Wagelaar
    • 1
  • Ragnhild Van Der Straeten
    • 1
  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations