Constructing and Visualizing Transformation Chains

  • Jens von Pilgrim
  • Bert Vanhooff
  • Immo Schulz-Gerlach
  • Yolande Berbers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5095)


Model transformations can be defined by a chain or network of sub-transformations, each fulfilling a specific task. Many intermediate models, possibly accompanied by traceability models, are thus generated before reaching the final target(s). There is a need for tools that assist the developer in managing and interpreting this growing amount of MDD artifacts. In this paper we first discuss how a transformation chain can be modeled and executed in a transformation language independent way. We then explore how the available traceability information can be used to generate suitable diagrams for all intermediate and final models. We also propose a technique to visualize all the diagrams along with their traceability information in a single view by using a 3D diagram editor. Finally, we present an example transformation chain that has been modeled, executed and visualized using our tools.


Model Transformation Notation Model Traceability Link Transformation Language Traceability Model 
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.
    Vanhooff, B., Ayed, D., Baelen, S.V., 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)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Szyperski, C.: Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming models with atl. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    IBM Alphaworks: Model transformation framework. Misc (2004),
  5. 5.
    OMG: A Proposal for an MDA Foundation Model. Object Management Group, Needham, MA. ormsc/05-04-01 edn. (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vanhooff, B., Van Baelen, S., Joosen, W., Berbers, Y.: Traceability as input for model transformations. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on MDA Traceability Workshop, Nuremberg, Germany (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process. Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    von Pilgrim, J.: Mental map and model driven development. In: Fish, A., Knapp, A., Störrle, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on the Layout of (Software) Engineering Diagrams (LED 2007). Electronic Communications of the EASST, vol. 7, pp. 17–32 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eclipse Foundation: Graphical Editing Framework (GEF), Project Website (2008),
  10. 10.
    Topcased: Topcased Tools, Project Website (2008),
  11. 11.
    Eclipse Foundation: Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF), Project Website (2008),
  12. 12.
    von Pilgrim, J.: Graphical Editing Framework 3D (GEF3D), Project Website (2008),
  13. 13.
    Kleppe, A.: Mcc: A model transformation environment. In: Rensink, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4066, pp. 173–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marvie, R.: A transformation composition framework for model driven engineering. Technical Report LIFL-2004-10, LIFL (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Object Management Group: Qvt-merge group submission for mof 2.0 query/view/transformation. Misc (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Allilaire, F., Bezivin, J., Bruneliere, H., Jouault, F.: Global model management in eclipse gmt/am3. In: Thomas, D. (ed.) ECOOP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4067. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Salay, R., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S., Diskin, Z., McCormick, P., Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Viriyakattiyaporn, P.: An eclipse-based tool framework for software model management. In: Eclipse 2007: Proceedings of the 2007 OOPSLA workshop on eclipse technology eXchange, pp. 55–59. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gills, M.: Survey of traceability models in it projects. In: ECMDA-TW Workshop (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jouault, F.: Loosely coupled traceability for atl. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Model Driven Architecture (ECMDA) workshop on traceability, Nuremberg, Germany (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barbero, M., Fabro, M.D.D., Bézivin, J.: Traceability and provenance issues in global model management. In: 3rd ECMDA-Traceability Workshop (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alfert, K., Engelen, F., Fronk, A.: Experiences in three-dimensional visualization of java class relations. SDPS Journal of Design & Process Science 5, 91–106 (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gil, J., Kent, S.: Three dimensional software modelling. In: 20th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1998), Los Alamitos, CA, USA, p. 105. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Duan, C., Cleland-Huang, J.: Visualization and analysis in automated trace retrieval. In: First International Workshop on Requirements Engineering Visualization (REV 2006 - RE 2006 Workshop), Los Alamitos, CA, USA, vol. 5. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greevy, O., Lanza, M., Wysseier, C.: Visualizing live software systems in 3d. In: SoftVis 2006: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Software visualization, pp. 47–56. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jens von Pilgrim
    • 1
  • Bert Vanhooff
    • 2
  • Immo Schulz-Gerlach
    • 1
  • Yolande Berbers
    • 2
  1. 1.FernUniversität in HagenHagenGermany
  2. 2.DistriNetK.U.LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations