Advertisement

A Comparison of Model Migration Tools

  • Louis M. Rose
  • Markus Herrmannsdoerfer
  • James R. Williams
  • Dimitrios S. Kolovos
  • Kelly Garcés
  • Richard F. Paige
  • Fiona A. C. Polack
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6394)

Abstract

Modelling languages and thus their metamodels are subject to change. When a metamodel evolves, existing models may no longer conform to the evolved metamodel. To avoid rebuilding them from scratch, existing models must be migrated to conform to the evolved metamodel. Manually migrating existing models is tedious and error-prone. To alleviate this, several tools have been proposed to build a migration strategy that automates the migration of existing models. Little is known about the advantages and disadvantages of the tools in different situations. In this paper, we thus compare a representative sample of migration tools – AML, COPE, Ecore2Ecore and Epsilon Flock – using common migration examples. The criteria used in the comparison aim to support users in selecting the most appropriate tool for their situation.

Keywords

Model Transformation Graph Transformation Model Migration Migration Strategy Transformation 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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cicchetti, A., Di Ruscio, D., Eramo, R., Pierantonio, A.: Automating co-evolution in MDE. In: Proc. EDOC, pp. 222–231. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst. J. 45(3), 621–645 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eclipse. UML2 Model Development Tools project [online] (2009), http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/uml2 (Accessed September 7, 2009)
  4. 4.
    Favre, J.: Meta-model and model co-evolution within the 3d software space. In: Proc. ELISA Workshop, pp. 98–109 (September 2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garcés, K., Jouault, F., Cointe, P., Bézivin, J.: A Domain Specific Language for Expressing Model Matching. In: Proc. IDM, Nancy, France (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garcés, K., Jouault, F., Cointe, P., Bézivin, J.: Managing model adaptation by precise detection of metamodel changes. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 34–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gronback, R.C.: Eclipse Modeling Project: A Domain-Specific Language (DSL) Toolkit. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grønmo, R., Møller-Pedersen, B., Olsen, G.K.: Comparison of three model transformation languages. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gruschko, B., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F.: Towards synchronizing models with evolving metamodels. In: Workshop on Model-Driven Software Evolution (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Benz, S., Juergens, E.: Automatability of coupled evolution of metamodels and models in practice. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 645–659. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Benz, S., Juergens, E.: COPE - automating coupled evolution of metamodels and models. In: Drossopoulou, S. (ed.) ECOOP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5653, pp. 52–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Ratiu, D., Wachsmuth, G.: Language evolution in practice. In: van den Brand, M., Gašević, D., Gray, J. (eds.) Software Language Engineering. LNCS, vol. 5969, pp. 3–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hussey, K., Paternostro, M.: Advanced features of EMF. In: Tutorial at EclipseCon 2006, California, USA (2006), http://www.eclipsecon.org/2006/Sub.do?id=171 (Accessed September 07, 2009)
  15. 15.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming models with ATL. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 128–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kolovos, D.S.: An Extensible Platform for Specification of Integrated Languages for Model Management. PhD thesis, University of York, United Kingdom (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mens, T., Van Gorp, P.: A taxonomy of model transformation. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 152, 125–142 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Narayanan, A., Levendovszky, T., Balasubramanian, D., Karsai, G.: Automatic domain model migration to manage metamodel evolution. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 706–711. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    OMG. Query/View/Transformation 1.0 Specification [online] (2008), http://www.omg.org/spec/QVT/1.0/ (Accessed April 26, 2010)
  20. 20.
    Rose, L.M., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C.: An analysis of approaches to model migration. In: Proc. Joint MoDSE-MCCM Workshop (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rose, L.M., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C.: Model migration with Epsilon Flock. In: Tratt, L., Gogolla, M. (eds.) ICMT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6142, pp. 184–198. Springer, Heidelberg (accepted 2010) (to appear)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sprinkle, J.: Metamodel Driven Model Migration. PhD thesis, Vanderbilt University, TN, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sprinkle, J., Agrawal, A., Levendovszky, T., Shi, F., Karsai, G.: Domain model evolution in visual languages using graph transformations. In: Proc. Workshop on Domain-Specific Visual Languages (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taentzer, G., Ehrig, K., Guerra, E., De Lara, J., Levendovszky, T., Prange, U., Varro, D.: Model transformations by graph transformations: A comparative study. In: Model Transformations in Practice Workshop at MoDELS 2005, Montego, 5p. (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wachsmuth, G.: Metamodel adaptation and model co-adaptation. In: Ernst, E. (ed.) ECOOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4609, pp. 600–624. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louis M. Rose
    • 1
  • Markus Herrmannsdoerfer
    • 2
  • James R. Williams
    • 1
  • Dimitrios S. Kolovos
    • 1
  • Kelly Garcés
    • 3
    • 4
  • Richard F. Paige
    • 1
  • Fiona A. C. Polack
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkUK
  2. 2.Institut für InformatikTechnische Universität MünchenGermany
  3. 3.AtlanMod (EMN-INRIA)NantesFrance
  4. 4.ASCOLA (LINA-INRIA)NantesFrance

Personalised recommendations