A Formalisation of Constraint-Aware Model Transformations

  • Adrian Rutle
  • Alessandro Rossini
  • Yngve Lamo
  • Uwe Wolter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6013)


This paper introduces a formal approach to the definition of constraint-aware model transformations. The proposed approach is based on the Diagram Predicate Framework and extends graph transformations with the ability to handle constraints in the definition and execution of model transformations. In particular, it uses non-deleting rules that are typed over the metamodel of a joined modelling language which is constructed from the source and target languages. Furthermore, the application of transformation rules is formalised as a pushout construction that creates a model which is typed over the metamodel of the joined modelling language. Finally, the target model is obtained from the created model by a pullback construction.


Modelling Language Model Transformation Transformation Rule Target Model Object Constraint Language 
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.
    Biermann, E., Ehrig, K., Köhler, C., Kuhns, G., Taentzer, G., Weiss, E.: EMF Model Refactoring based on Graph Transformation Concepts. ECEASST 3 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boronat, A., Meseguer, J.: Algebraic Semantics of OCL-Constrained Metamodel Specifications. In: Oriol, M., Meyer, B. (eds.) TOOLS Europe 2009: 47th International Conference on Objects, Components, Models and Patterns. LNBIP, vol. 33, pp. 96–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: Analysing Graph Transformation Rules through OCL. In: Vallecillo, A., Gray, J., Pierantonio, A. (eds.) ICMT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5063, pp. 229–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Classification of Model Transformation Approaches. In: OOPSLA 2003: 2nd Workshop on Generative Techniques in the Context of MDA (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diskin, Z.: Mathematics of UML: Making the Odysseys of UML less dramatic. In: Practical foundations of business system specifications, pp. 145–178. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diskin, Z., Dingel, J.: A metamodel Independent Framework for Model Transformation: Towards Generic Model Management Patterns in Reverse Engineering. Technical Report 1/2006, ATEM 2006, Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz, Germany (October 2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Ermel, C., Hermann, F., Taentzer, G.: Information Preserving Bidirectional Model Transformations. In: Dwyer, M.B., Lopes, A. (eds.) FASE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4422, pp. 72–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fiadeiro, J.L.: Categories for Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fondement, F., Baar, T.: Making Metamodels Aware of Concrete Syntax. In: Hartman, A., Kreische, D. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3748, pp. 190–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kleppe, A.G., Warmer, J., Bast, W.: MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Königs, A., Schürr, A.: Tool Integration with Triple Graph Grammars – A Survey. ENTCS 148(1), 113–150 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lengyel, L., Levendovszky, T., Charaf, H.: Constraint Validation Support in Visual Model Transformation Systems. Acta Cybernetica 17(2), 339–357 (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marković, S., Baar, T.: Refactoring OCL annotated UML class diagrams. Software and System Modeling 7(1), 25–47 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mens, T., Gorp, P.V.: A Taxonomy of Model Transformation. ENTCS 152, 125–142 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group: Meta-Object Facility Specification (January 2006),
  17. 17.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language Specification (February 2009),
  18. 18.
    Petter, A., Behring, A., Mühlhäuser, M.: Solving Constraints in Model Transformations. In: Paige, R.F. (ed.) ICMT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5563, pp. 132–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poernomo, I.H.: A Type Theoretic Framework for Formal Metamodelling. In: Reussner, R., Stafford, J.A., Szyperski, C. (eds.) Architecting Systems with Trustworthy Components. LNCS, vol. 3938, pp. 262–298. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rutle, A., Rossini, A., Lamo, Y., Wolter, U.: A Category-Theoretical Approach to the Formalisation of Version Control in MDE. In: Chechik, M., Wirsing, M. (eds.) FASE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5503, pp. 64–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rutle, A., Rossini, A., Lamo, Y., Wolter, U.: A Diagrammatic Formalisation of MOF-Based Modelling Languages. In: Brakhage, H. (ed.) TOOLS Europe 2009: 47th International Conference on Objects, Components, Models and Patterns. LNBIP, vol. 33, pp. 37–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rutle, A., Wolter, U., Lamo, Y.: A Diagrammatic Approach to Model Transformations. In: EATIS 2008: Euro American Conference on Telematics and Information Systems, pp. 1–8. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sendall, S., Kozaczynski, W.: Model Transformation: The Heart and Soul of Model-Driven Software Development. IEEE Software 20(5), 42–45 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrian Rutle
    • 1
  • Alessandro Rossini
    • 2
  • Yngve Lamo
    • 1
  • Uwe Wolter
    • 2
  1. 1.Bergen University CollegeBergenNorway
  2. 2.University of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations