Transformation Language Integration Based on Profiles and Higher Order Transformations

  • Pieter Van Gorp
  • Anne Keller
  • Dirk Janssens
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5452)

Abstract

For about two decades, researchers have been constructing tools for applying graph transformations on large model transformation case studies. Instead of incrementally extending a common core, these competitive tool builders have repeatedly reconstructed mechanisms that were already supported by other tools. Not only has this been counter-productive, it has also prevented the definition of new language constructs independently of a specific transformation tool. Moreover, it has complicated the comparison of transformation languages. This paper describes a light-weight solution to this integration problem. The approach is based on executable transformation modeling using a small UML profile and on higher order transformations. It enables the integration of graph transformation tools such as Fujaba, VMTS and GReAT. The paper illustrates the approach by discussing the contribution of a Copy operator to any of these tools. Other language constructs can be realized similarly, without locking into specific tools.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Nagl, M., Schürr, A.: Summary and specification lessons learned. In: Nagl, M. (ed.) IPSEN 1996. LNCS, vol. 1170, pp. 370–377. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fischer, T., Niere, J., Torunski, L., Zündorf, A.: Story diagrams: A new graph rewrite language based on the unified modeling language and java. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) TAGT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1764, pp. 296–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jahnke, J.H., Schäfer, W., Wadsack, J.P., Zündorf, A.: Supporting iterations in exploratory database reengineering processes. Sci. Comput. Program. 45(2-3), 99–136 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    University of Paderborn. Fujaba Tool Suite (2007), http://www.fujaba.de/
  5. 5.
    Agrawal, A.: Graph Rewriting And Transformation (GReAT): A solution for the Model Integrated Computing (MIC) bottleneck. In: ASE, p. 364 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kalnins, A., Celms, E., Sostaks, A.: Simple and efficient implementation of pattern matching in MOLA tool. In: 2006 7th International Baltic Conference on Databases and Information Systems, 3-6 July, pp. 159–167 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levendovszky, T., Lengyel, L., Mezei, G., Charaf, H.: A systematic approach to metamodeling environments and model transformation systems in VMTS. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 127, 65–75 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lambers, L.: A new version of GTXL: An exchange format for graph transformation systems. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 127, 51–63 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Object Management Group. MOF 2.0 QVT final adopted specifications (November 2005), http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/05-11-01
  10. 10.
    Van Gorp, P.: Model-driven Development of Model Transformations. PhD thesis, University of Antwerp (April 2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Green, T.R.G.: Cognitive dimensions of notations. In: Sutcliffe, A., Macaulay, L. (eds.) People and Computers V, New York, NY, USA, pp. 443–460. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1989)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muliawan, O., Schippers, H., Van Gorp, P.: Model driven, Template based, Model Transformer (MoTMoT) (2007), http://motmot.sourceforge.net/
  13. 13.
    Bernstein, P.A.: Generic model management: A database infrastructure for schema manipulation. In: Batini, C., Giunchiglia, F., Giorgini, P., Mecella, M. (eds.) CoopIS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2172, pp. 1–6. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Gorp, P., Schippers, H., Janssens, D.: Copying Subgraphs within Model Repositories. In: Bruni, R., Varró, D. (eds.) Fifth International Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques, Vienna, Austria. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 127–139. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gogolla, M., Richters, M.: Transformation rules for UML class diagrams. In: Bézivin, J., Muller, P.-A. (eds.) UML 1998. LNCS, vol. 1618, pp. 92–106. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Narayanan, A.: UML-to-CSP transformation using GReAT. In: AGTiVE 2007 Tool Contest Solutions (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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: Täntzer, G., Rensink, A. (eds.) AGTIVE 2007 Tool Contest (January 2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Königs, A., Schürr, A.: Tool integration with Triple Graph Grammars - a survey. In: Heckel, R. (ed.) Proceedings of the SegraVis School on Foundations of Visual Modelling Techniques. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 148, pp. 113–150. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burmester, S., Giese, H., Niere, J., Tichy, M., Wadsack, J.P., Wagner, R., Wendehals, L., Zündorf, A.: Tool integration at the meta-model level: the Fujaba approach. International Journal on STTT 6(3), 203–218 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wagner, R.: Consistency Management System for the Fujaba Tool Suite – MoTE/MoRTEn Plugins (January 2008), https://dsd-serv.uni-paderborn.de/projects/cms/
  22. 22.
    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
  23. 23.
    Horváth, Á., Varró, D., Varró, G.: Automatic generation of platform-specific transformation. Info-Communications-Technology LXI(7), 40–45 (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Wyk, E., de Moor, O., Backhouse, K., Kwiatkowski, P.: Forwarding in attribute grammars for modular language design. In: Horspool, R.N. (ed.) CC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2304, pp. 128–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Wyk, E., Per Erik Heimdahl, M.: Flexibility in modeling languages and tools: A call to arms. International Journal on STTT (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meyers, B., Van Gorp, P.: Towards a hybrid transformation language: Implicit and explicit rule scheduling in Story Diagrams. In: Proc. of the 6th International Fujaba Days 2008, Dresden, Germany (September 2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ermel, C., Rudolf, M., Taentzer, G.: The AGG approach: language and environment. In: Handbook of graph grammars and computing by graph transformation. Applications, Languages, and Tools, vol. II, pp. 551–603. World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    The Apache Software Foundation. Maven (2007), http://maven.apache.org/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter Van Gorp
    • 1
  • Anne Keller
    • 1
  • Dirk Janssens
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations