Exceptional Transformations

  • Eugene Syriani
  • Jörg Kienzle
  • Hans Vangheluwe
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6142)


As model transformations are increasingly used in model-driven engineering, the dependability of model transformation systems becomes crucial to model-driven development deliverables. As any other software, model transformations can contain design faults, be used in inappropriate ways, or may be affected by problems arising in the transformation execution environment at run-time. We propose in this paper to introduce exception handling into model transformation languages to increase the dependability of model transformations. We first introduce a classification of different kinds of exceptions that can occur in the context of model transformations. We present an approach in which exceptions are modelled in the transformation language and the transformation designer is given constructs to define exception handlers to recover from exceptional situations. This facilitates the debugging of transformations at design time. It also enables the design of fault-tolerant transformations that continue to work reliably even in the context of design faults, misuse, or faults in the execution environment.


Virtual Machine Model Transformation Transformation Rule Graph Transformation Design Fault 
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.
    Dony, C.: Exception handling and object-oriented programming: Towards a synthesis. In: ECOOP. SIGPLAN, vol. 25, pp. 322–330. ACM Press, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goodenough, J.B.: Exception handling: Issues and a proposed notation. Communications of the ACM 18, 683–696 (1975)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H.: DEVS as a Semantic Domain for Programmed Graph Transformation. In: Discrete-Event Modeling and Simulation: Theory and Applications, CRC Press, Boca Raton (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: Adding recursion to graph transformation. In: GT-VMT 2007, ECEASST, Braga, vol. 6 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zündorf, A., Schürr, A.: Nondeterministic control structures for graph rewriting systems. In: Schmidt, G., Berghammer, R. (eds.) WG 1991. LNCS, vol. 570, pp. 48–62. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Object Management Group: Meta Object Facility 2.0 QVT Specification (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fischer, T., Niere, J., Turunski, L., Zündorf, A.: Story diagrams: A new graph rewrite language based on UML and Java. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) TAGT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1764, pp. 296–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agrawal, A., Karsai, G., Kalmar, Z., Neema, S., Shi, F., Vizhanyo, A.: The design of a language for model transformations. SoSym 5, 261–288 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H.: De-/re-constructing model transformation languages. In: GT-VMT, ECEASST, Paphos (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heckel, R., Küster, J.M., Taentzer, G.: Confluence of typed attributed graph transformation systems. In: Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Kreowski, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2505, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hausmann, J.H., Heckel, R., Taentzer, G.: Detection of conflicting functional requirements in a use case-driven approach. In: ICSE 2002, pp. 105–115. ACM, Orlando (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gardner, T., Griffin, C., Koehler, J., Hauser, R.: A review of QVT submissions and recommendations towards the final standard. In: MetaModelling for MDA, pp. 178–197 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Kühne, T., Mezei, G., Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H., Wimmer, M.: Systematic transformation development. In: ECEASST, vol. 21 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brambilla, M., Ceri, S., Comai, S., Tziviskou, C.: Exception handling in workflow-driven web applications. In: WWW 2005, Chiba, pp. 170–180 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pintér, G., Majzik, I.: Modeling and analysis of exception handling by using UML statecharts. In: Guelfi, N., Reggio, G., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) FIDJI 2004. LNCS, vol. 3409, pp. 58–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I.: ATL: A model transformation tool. Science of Computer Programming, Special Issue on EST 72, 31–39 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dvorak, R.: Model transformation with operational QVT. In: EclipseCon 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    France Telecom R&D: SmartQVT (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Varró, D., Balogh, A.: The model transformation language of the VIATRA2 framework. Science of Computer Programming 68, 214–234 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Syriani, E., Kienzle, J., Vangheluwe, H.: Exceptional transformations. Technical Report SOCS-TR-2010.2, McGill University, School of Computer Science (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugene Syriani
    • 1
  • Jörg Kienzle
    • 1
  • Hans Vangheluwe
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.McGill UniversityMontréalCanada
  2. 2.University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations