Transformation of UML Models to CSP: A Case Study for Graph Transformation Tools

  • Dániel Varró
  • Márk Asztalos
  • Dénes Bisztray
  • Artur Boronat
  • Duc-Hanh Dang
  • Rubino Geiß
  • Joel Greenyer
  • Pieter Van Gorp
  • Ole Kniemeyer
  • Anantha Narayanan
  • Edgars Rencis
  • Erhard Weinell
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5088)


Graph transformation provides an intuitive mechanism for capturing model transformations. In the current paper, we investigate and compare various graph transformation tools using a compact practical model transformation case study carried out as part of the AGTIVE 2007 Tool Contest [22]. The aim of this case study is to generate formal CSP processes from high-level UML activity diagrams, which enables to carry out mathematical analysis of the system under design.


Model Transformation Transformation Rule Graph Transformation Activity Diagram 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.
    Visual Modelling and Transformation System (VMTS),
  2. 2.
    The Lx transformation language set (2007),
  3. 3.
    Agrawal, A., Karsai, G., Ledeczi, A.: An end-to-end domain-driven software development framework. In: 18th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object- Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), Anaheim, California (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amelunxen, C., Königs, A., Rötschke, T., Schürr, A.: MOFLON: A Standard-Compliant Metamodeling Framework with Graph Transformations. In: Rensink, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4066, pp. 361–375. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boronat, A.: The MOMENT2-GT web site (2008),
  6. 6.
    ATLAS Group. The ATLAS Transformation Language,
  7. 7.
    Balasubramanian, D., Narayanan, A., van Buskirk, C., Karsai, G.: The graph rewriting and transformation language: GReAT. In: 3rd International Workshop on Graph Based Tools (GraBaTs 2006), Natal, Brazil (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barzdins, J., Zarins, A., Cerans, K., Kalnins, A., Rencis, E., Lace, L., Liepins, R., Sprogis, A.: GrTP: Transformation based graphical tool building platform. In: MDDAUI 2007: Workshop on Model Driven Development of Advanced User Interfaces (Satellite event of MODELS 2007) (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bisztray, D.: Verification of architectural refactoring rules. Tech. rep., Department of Computer Science, University of Leicester (2008),
  10. 10.
    Bisztray, D., Heckel, R.: Rule-level verification of business process transformations using CSP. In: Proc. of 6th International Workshop on Graph Transformations and Visual Modeling Techniques (GTVMT 2007) (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: All About Maude - A High-Performance Logical Framework. LNCS, vol. 4350. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eclipse Consortium. Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) – Version 2.3 (2007),
  13. 13.
    Geiß, R., Kroll, M.: GrGen.NET: A fast, expressive, and general purpose graph rewrite tool. In: Schürr, A., Nagl, M., Zündorf, A. (eds.) AGTIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 5088. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gogolla, M., Büttner, F., Richters, M.: USE: A UML-Based Specification Environment for Validating UML and OCL. Science of Computer Programming 69, 27–34 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greenyer, J., Kindler, E.: Reconciling TGGs with QVT. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greenyer, J., Kindler, E., Rieke, J., Travkin, O.: TGGs for Transforming UML to CSP: Contribution to the ACTIVE 2007 Graph Transformation Tools Contest. Tech. Rep. tr-ri-08-287, Software Engineering Group, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Paderborn (2008),
  17. 17.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kniemeyer, O., Kurth, W.: The modelling platform GroIMP and the programming language XL. In: Schürr, A., Nagl, M., Zündorf, A. (eds.) AGTIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 5088. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ledeczi, A., Bakay, A., Maroti, M., Volgyesi, P., Nordstrom, G., Sprinkle, J., Karsai, G.: Composing domain-specific design environments. Computer 34(11), 44–51 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Object Management Group (OMG). MOF QVT Final Adopted Specification (2007),
  21. 21.
    OMG. Unified Modeling Language, version 2.1.1 (2006),
  22. 22.
    Rensink, A., Taentzer, G.: AGTIVE 2007 Graph Transformation Tool Contest. In: Schürr, A., Nagl, M., Zündorf, A. (eds.) AGTIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 5088. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schürr, A.: Specification of Graph Translators with Triple Graph Grammars. In: Mayr, E.W., Schmidt, G., Tinhofer, G. (eds.) WG 1994. LNCS, vol. 903, pp. 151–163. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schürr, A., Winter, A.J., Zündorf, A.: The PROGRES approach: Language and environment. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Handbook on Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation: Applications, Languages, and Tools, vol. 2, pp. 487–550. World Scientific, Singapore (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    SENSORIA: Software Engineering for Service-Oriented Overlay Computers,
  26. 26.
    Tiger Developer Team. Tiger EMF Transformer (2007),
  27. 27.
    Van Gorp, P., Muliawan, O., Keller, A., Janssens, D.: Executing a platform independent model of the UML-to-CSP transformation on a commercial platform. In: AGTIVE 2007 Tool Contest (2007),
  28. 28.
    Wagner, R.: Developing Model Transformations with Fujaba. In: Giese, H., Westfechtel, B. (eds.) Proc. 4th International Fujaba Days 2006, Bayreuth, Germany, vol. tr-ri-06-275. Techn. Rep., pp. 79–82. Univ. of Paderborn (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dániel Varró
    • 1
  • Márk Asztalos
    • 1
  • Dénes Bisztray
    • 2
  • Artur Boronat
    • 2
  • Duc-Hanh Dang
    • 3
  • Rubino Geiß
    • 4
  • Joel Greenyer
    • 5
  • Pieter Van Gorp
    • 6
  • Ole Kniemeyer
    • 7
  • Anantha Narayanan
    • 8
  • Edgars Rencis
    • 9
  • Erhard Weinell
    • 10
  1. 1.Budapest University of Technology and EconomicsHungary
  2. 2.Leicester UniversityUK
  3. 3.Universität BremenGermany
  4. 4.Universität KarlsruheGermany
  5. 5.University of PaderbornGermany
  6. 6.University of AntwerpBelgium
  7. 7.BTU CottbusGermany
  8. 8.Vanderbilt University, TNUSA
  9. 9.University of LatviaLatvia
  10. 10.RWTH Aachen University of TechnologyGermany

Personalised recommendations