Advertisement

Explicit Transformation Modeling

  • Thomas Kühne
  • Gergely Mezei
  • Eugene Syriani
  • Hans Vangheluwe
  • Manuel Wimmer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6002)

Abstract

Despite the pivotal significance of transformations for model-driven approaches, there have not been any attempts to explicitly model transformation languages yet. This paper presents a novel approach for the specification of transformations by modeling model transformation languages as domain-specific languages. For each pair of domain, the metamodel of the rules are (quasi-)automatically generated to create a language tailored to the transformation. Moreover, this method is very efficient when the transformation domains are the transformation rules themselves, which facilitates the design of higher-order transformations.

Keywords

Transformation Rule Operational Semantic Graph Transformation Traceability Link Finite State Automaton 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: A tour of language customization concepts. Advances in Computers 70(3), 105–161 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Systems Journal, special issue on Model-Driven Software Development 45(3), 621–645 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming models with ATL. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 128–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Lara, J., Vangheluwe, H.: AToM3: A tool for multi-formalism and meta-modelling. In: Kutsche, R.-D., Weber, H. (eds.) FASE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2306, pp. 174–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Agrawal, A., Karsai, G., Kalmar, Z., Neema, S., Shi, F., Vizhanyo, A.: The design of a language for model transformations. SoSym 5(3), 261–288 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Object Management Group: Meta Object Facility 2.0 Query/View/Transformation Specification (April 2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lengyel, L., Levendovszky, T., Mezei, G., Charaf, H.: Control flow support in metamodel-based model transformation frameworks. In: EUROCON 2005, Belgradem, Serbia, pp. 595–598. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bézivin, J., Büttner, F., Gogolla, M., Jouault, F., Kurtev, I., Lindow, A.: Model transformations? transformation models! In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 440–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bézivin, J., Farcet, N., Jézéquel, J.M., Langlois, B., Pollet, D.: Reflective model driven engineering. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 175–189. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tisi, M., Jouault, F., Fraternali, P., Ceri, S., Bézivin, J.: On the use of higher-order model transformations. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 18–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H.: Programmed graph rewriting with DEVS. In: Schürr, A., Nagl, M., Zündorf, A. (eds.) AGTIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 5088, pp. 136–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Lara, J., Vangheluwe, H.: Automating the transformation-based analysis of visual languages. In: Formal Aspects of Computing, Special section on FASE (2008) (to appear)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gorp, P.V., Keller, A., Janssens, D.: Transformation language integration based on profiles and higher-order transformations. In: Gašević, D., Lämmel, R., Van Wyk, E. (eds.) SLE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5452, pp. 208–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: Event-driven grammars: Relating abstract and concrete levels of visual languages. SoSym 6(6), 317–347 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levendovszky, T., Lengyel, L., Mészáros, T.: Supporting domain-specific model patterns with metamodeling. Software and Systems Modeling, Theme Issue on Metamodeling (2009) (to appear)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Varró, D., Pataricza, A.: Generic and meta-transformations for model transformation engineering. In: Baar, T., Strohmeier, A., Moreira, A., Mellor, S.J. (eds.) UML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3273, pp. 290–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)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)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jouault, F.: Loosely coupled traceability for atl. In: ECMDA Workshop on Traceability (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kühne, T., Mezei, G., Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H., Wimmer, M.: Systematic transformation development. ECEASST 21 (October 2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Kühne
    • 1
  • Gergely Mezei
    • 2
  • Eugene Syriani
    • 3
  • Hans Vangheluwe
    • 3
    • 4
  • Manuel Wimmer
    • 5
  1. 1.Victoria University of Wellington 
  2. 2.Budapest University of Technology and Economics 
  3. 3.McGill University 
  4. 4.University of Antwerp 
  5. 5.Vienna University of Technology 

Personalised recommendations