Tree Based Domain-Specific Mapping Languages

  • Elina Kalnina
  • Audris Kalnins
  • Agris Sostaks
  • Edgars Celms
  • Janis Iraids
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7147)


Model transformation languages have been mainly used by researchers – the software engineering industry has not yet widely accepted the model driven software development (MDSD). One of the main reasons is the complexity of metamodelling principles the developers are required to know to actually use model transformations in the way the OMG has stated. We offer the basic principles how to create domain-specific model transformation languages which can be used by developers relying only on familiar modelling concepts. We propose to use simple graphical mappings to specify the correspondence between source and target models which are represented using trees based on the concrete syntax of underlying modelling languages. If such principles were followed, then the range of potential users of model transformation languages would increase significantly.


mappings domain-specific languages UML model transformation languages 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Blouin, A., Beaudoux, O., Loiseau, S.: Malan: a mapping language for the data manipulation. In: Proceeding of the Eighth ACM Symposium on Document Engineering, DocEng 2008, pp. 66–75. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bravenboer, M., Kalleberg, K.T., Vermaas, R., Visser, E.: Stratego/XT 0.17. A language and toolset for program transformation. Science of Computer Programming 72(1-2), 52–70 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cordy, J.R.: The TXL source transformation language. Sci. Comput. Program. 61, 190–210 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dumas, M.: Case study: BPMN to BPEL model transformation. Oryx, 6–9 (2008),
  6. 6.
    del Fabro, M.D., Bézivin, J., Jouault, F., Breton, E., Gueltas, G.: AMW: a generic model weaver. In: Proceedings of the 1ère Journée sur l’Ingénierie Dirigée par les Modèles (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grønmo, R., Møller-Pedersen, B.: From Sequence Diagrams to State Machines by Graph Transformation. In: Tratt, L., Gogolla, M. (eds.) ICMT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6142, pp. 93–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guerra, E., de Lara, J., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., dos Santos, O.M.: transML: A Family of Languages to Model Transformations. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6394, pp. 106–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hausmann, J.H., Kent, S.: Visualizing model mappings in UML. In: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM Symposium on Software Visualization, SoftVis 2003, pp. 169–178. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Kalnina, E., Kalnins, A., Celms, E., Sostaks, A.: Graphical Template Language for Transformation Synthesis. In: van den Brand, M., Gašević, D., Gray, J. (eds.) SLE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5969, pp. 244–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalnins, A., Barzdins, J., Celms, E.: Model Transformation Language MOLA. In: Aßmann, U., Aksit, M., Rensink, A. (eds.) MDAFA 2003. LNCS, vol. 3599, pp. 62–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kalnins, A., Sostaks, A., Celms, E., Kalnina, E., Ambroziewicz, A., Bojarski, J., Nowakowski, W., Straszak, T., Riediger, V., Schwarz, H., Bildhauer, D., Kavaldjian, S., Popp, R., Falb, J.: Final reuse-oriented modelling and transformation language definition. Project Deliverable D3.2.2, ReDSeeDS Project (2009),
  14. 14.
    Kalnins, A., Vilitis, O., Celms, E., Kalnina, E., Sostaks, A., Barzdins, J.: Building tools by model transformations in Eclipse. In: Proceedings of DSM 2007 Workshop of OOPSLA 2007, pp. 194–207. Jyvaskyla University Printing House, Montreal (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Lara, J., Vangheluwe, H.: AToM: 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
  16. 16.
    Lopes, D., Hammoudi, S., Bézivin, J., Jouault, F.: Generating Transformation Definition from Mapping Specification: Application to Web Service Platform. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 309–325. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Object Management Group: Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation (QVT) Specification, version 1.1, formal/ (January 01, 2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taentzer, G.: AGG: A Tool Environment for Algebraic Graph Transformation. In: Münch, M., Nagl, M. (eds.) AGTIVE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1779, pp. 481–488. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    W3C: XML Schema Part 0: Primer Second Edition (October 2004),
  20. 20.
    W3C: XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version 2.0 (2007) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Kusel, A., Retschitzegger, W., Schoenboeck, J., Schwinger, W.: Surviving the Heterogeneity Jungle with Composite Mapping Operators. In: Tratt, L., Gogolla, M. (eds.) ICMT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6142, pp. 260–275. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wimmer, M., Strommer, M., Kargl, H., Kramler, G.: Towards model transformation ge-neration by-example. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2007, p. 285. IEEE Computer Society, USA (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elina Kalnina
    • 1
  • Audris Kalnins
    • 1
  • Agris Sostaks
    • 1
  • Edgars Celms
    • 1
  • Janis Iraids
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Latvia, IMCSRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations