Correct Reuse of Transformations is Hard to Guarantee

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9765)


As model transformations become more complex and more central to software development, reuse mechanisms become more important to enable effective and efficient development of high-quality transformations. A number of transformation-reuse mechanisms have been proposed, but so far there have been no effective attempts at evaluating the quality of reuse that can be achieved by these approaches. In this paper, we build on our earlier work on transformation intents and propose a systematic approach for analyzing the soundness and completeness of a given transformation reuse mechanism with respect to the preservation of transformation intent. We apply this approach to analyze transformation-reuse mechanisms currently proposed in the literature and show that these mechanisms are not sound or complete. We show why providing sound transformation reuse mechanisms is a hard problem, but provide some evidence that by limiting ourselves to specific families of transformations and modeling languages the problem can be simplified. As a result of our exploration, we propose a new research agenda into the development of sound (and possibly complete) transformation reuse mechanisms.


State Machine Modeling Language Model Transformation Parameterized Transformation Target Type 
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.


  1. 1.
    Steel, J., Jézéquel, J.M.: On model typing. SoSyM 6(4), 401–413 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guy, C., Combemale, B., Derrien, S., Steel, J.R.H., Jézéquel, J.-M.: On model subtyping. In: Vallecillo, A., Tolvanen, J.-P., Kindler, E., Störrle, H., Kolovos, D. (eds.) ECMFA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7349, pp. 400–415. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Lara, J., Guerra, E.: From types to type requirements: genericity for model-driven engineering. SoSyM 12(3), 453–474 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rose, L., Guerra, E., de Lara, J., Etien, A., Kolovos, D., Paige, R.: Genericity for model management operations. SoSyM 12, 201–219 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pham, Q.T., Beugnard, A.: Automatic adaptation of transformations based on type graph with multiplicity. In: Proceedings of SEAA 2012, pp. 170–174 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pham, Q.T.: Model Transformation Reuse: A Graph-based Model Typing Approach. PhD thesis, Université de Rennes (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zschaler, S.: Towards constraint-based model types: a generalised formal foundation for model genericity. In: Proceedings of VAO 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Salay, R., Zschaler, S., Chechik, M.: Transformation reuse: what is the intent? In: Proceedings of AMT@MODELS 2015, pp. 7–15 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kühne, T.: On model compatibility with referees and contexts. Softw. Syst. Model. 12(3), 475–488 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lúcio, L., Amrani, M., Dingel, J., Lambers, L., Salay, R., Selim, G.M., Syriani, E., Wimmer, M.: Model transformation intents and their properties. SoSym 1–38 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paull, M.C., Unger, S.H.: Minimizing the number of states in incompletely specified sequential switching functions. IRE Trans. Electron. Comput. EC-8(3), 356–367 (1959)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Lara, J., Guerra, E.: Towards the flexible reuse of model transformations: a formal approach based on graph transformation. J. Logical Algebraic Methods Program. 83(5–6), 427–458 (2014)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kusel, A., Schönböck, J., Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Retschitzegger, W., Schwinger, W.: Reuse in model-to-model transformation languages: are we there yet? SoSyM 14(2), 537–572 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kusel, A., Schönböck, J., Wimmer, M., Retschitzegger, W., Schwinger, W., Kappel, G.: Reality check for model transformation reuse: the ATL transformation zoo case study. In: Proceedings of AMT@MODELS 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vanhooff, B., Ayed, D., Van Baelen, S., Joosen, W., Berbers, Y.: UniTI: a unified transformation infrastructure. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wagelaar, D., van der Straeten, R., Deridder, D.: Module superimposition: a composition technique for rule-based model transformation languages. SoSyM 9, 285–309 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zschaler, S., Terrell, J., Poernomo, I.: Towards modular reasoning for model transformations. In: Workshop on Composition and Evolution of Model Transformations, King’s College London, Department of Informatics (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Musser, D.R., Stepanov, A.A.: Generic programming. In: Gianni, P. (ed.) ISSAC 1988. LNCS, vol. 358, pp. 13–25. Springer, Heidelberg (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of InformaticsKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations