UniTI: A Unified Transformation Infrastructure

  • Bert Vanhooff
  • Dhouha Ayed
  • Stefan Van Baelen
  • Wouter Joosen
  • Yolande Berbers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4735)

Abstract

A model transformation can be decomposed into a sequence of subtransformations, i.e. a transformation chain, each addressing a limited set of concerns. However, with current transformation technologies it is hard to (re)use and compose subtransformations without being very familiar with their implementation details. Furthermore, the difficulty of combining different transformation technologies often thwarts choosing the most appropriate technology for each subtransformation. In this paper we propose a model-based approach to reuse and compose subtransformations in a technology-independent fashion. This is accomplished by developing a unified representation of transformations and facilitating detailed transformation specifications. We have implemented our approach in a tool called UniTI, which also provides a transformation chain editor. We have evaluated our approach by comparing it to alternative approaches.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Parnas, D.L.: On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Commun. ACM 15, 1053–1058 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kleppe, A.: Mcc: A model transformation environment. In: ECMDA-FA, pp. 173–187 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming models with atl. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    IBM Alphaworks: Model transformation framework. Misc (2004), http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/mtf
  5. 5.
    Csertán, G., Huszerl, G., Majzik, I., Pap, Z., Pataricza, A., Varró, D.: VIATRA Visual Automated Transformations for Formal Verification and Validation of UML Models. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE international conference on Automated software engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ho, W.M., Jezequel, J.M., Pennanc’h, F., Plouzeau, N.: A toolkit for weaving aspect-oriented uml designs. In: Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development, pp. 99–105. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Object Management Group: Qvt-merge group submission for mof 2.0 query/view/transformation. Misc (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Object Management Group: Uml 2.0 superstructure ftf convenience document. Misc (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Object Management Group: Meta object facility (mof) 2.0 core specification. Misc (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Budinsky, F., Brodsky, S.A., Merks, E.: Eclipse Modeling Framework. Pearson Education (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Classification of model transformation approaches. In: OOPSLA 2003 Workshop on Generative Techniques in the context of MDA (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bézivin, J., Jouault, F., Rosenthal, P., Valduriez, P.: The AMMA platform support for modeling in the large and modelling in the small. Technical Report 04.09, LINA (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barbero, M., Fabro, M.D.D., Bézivin, J.: Traceability and provenance issues in global model management. In: 3rd ECMDA-Traceability Workshop (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Szyperski, C.: Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sendall, S., Perrouin, G., Guelfi, N., Biberstein, O.: Supporting model-to-model transformations: The vmt approach. Technical report (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meyer, B.: Applying ”design by contract”. Computer 25, 40–51 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Object Management Group: Uml 2.0 ocl final adopted specification. Misc (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gavras, A., Belaunde, M., Almeida, L.F.: Towards an mda-based development methodology. In: Oquendo, F., Warboys, B.C., Morrison, R. (eds.) EWSA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3047, pp. 230–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beaton, W., d. Rivieres, J.: Eclipse platform technical overview. Technical report, The Eclipse Foundation (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marvie, R.: A transformation composition framework for model driven engineering. Technical Report LIFL-2004-10, LIFL (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wagelaar, D.: Blackbox composition of model transformations using domain-specific modelling languages. In: Rensink, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4066, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moodie, M.: Pro Apache Ant (Pro). Apress, Berkely, CA, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Willink, E.D.: Omelet:exploiting meta-models as type systems. In: 2nd European Workshop on MDA with an emphasis on Methodologies and Transformations (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blanc, X., Gervais, M.P., Sriplakich, P.: Model bus: Towards the interoperability of modelling tools. In: MDAFA, pp. 17–32 (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kurtev, I., van den Berg, K., Jouault, F.: Evaluation of rule-based modularization in model transformation languages illustrated with atl. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Applied computing, pp. 1202–1209. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bert Vanhooff
    • 1
  • Dhouha Ayed
    • 1
  • Stefan Van Baelen
    • 1
  • Wouter Joosen
    • 1
  • Yolande Berbers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, K.U.Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200A, 3001 LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations