Towards a Family of Model Transformation Languages

  • Jesús Sánchez Cuadrado
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7307)


Many model transformation languages of different nature have been proposed during the last years, each one of them suitable for a certain kind of transformation task. However, a complex transformation problem may not fall into a single transformation category, making the solution written in the chosen transformation language suboptimal, as some concerns cannot be handled naturally.

To tackle this issue, we propose to define a model transformation tool as a family of model transformation languages. Each member of the family is a simple language intended to deal with a particular kind of transformation task. In this paper we discuss the different issues involved, such as design decisions, interoperability among languages, and composability. We illustrate the paper with a transformation from UML and OCL to Java, in which languages for pattern matching, mapping, attribution and target-oriented transformations are used. Finally, the approach is validated with a proof-of-concept implementation.


Model Transformation Target Element Trace Link Java Virtual Machine 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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aho, A.V., Sethi, R., Ullman, J.D.: Compilers: principles, techniques, and tools. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (1986)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cuadrado, J.S., Jouault, F., Molina, J.G., Bézivin, J.: Experiments with a High-Level Navigation Language. In: Paige, R.F. (ed.) ICMT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5563, pp. 229–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cytron, R., Ferrante, J., Rosen, B.K., Wegman, M.N., Zadeck, F.K.: Efficiently computing static single assignment form and the control dependence graph. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 13, 451–490 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst. J. 45, 621–645 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Greenfield, J., Short, K., Cook, S., Kent, S.: Software Factories: Assembling Applications with Patterns, Models, Frameworks, and Tools. Wiley (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guerra, E., de Lara, J., Kolovos, D., Paige, R., dos Santos, O.: Engineering model transformations with transML. Software and Systems Modeling, 1–23 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I.: ATL: A model transformation tool. Science of Computer Programming 72(1-2), 31–39 (2008), (last accessed: November 2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: On the interoperability of model-to-model transformation languages. Sci. Comput. Program. 68, 114–137 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kleppe, A.: MCC: A Model Transformation Environment. In: Rensink, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4066, pp. 173–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kurtev, I., van den Berg, K., Jouault, F.: Rule-based modularization in model transformation languages illustrated with atl. Science of Computer Programming 68(3), 138–154 (2007); Special Issue on Model TransformationGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mens, T., Van Gorp, P.: A taxonomy of model transformation. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 152, 125–142 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    OMG. UML 2.3 specification,
  15. 15.
    OMG. Final adopted specification for MOF 2.0 Query/View/Transformation (2005),
  16. 16.
    Rompf, T., Maier, I., Odersky, M.: Implementing first-class polymorphic delimited continuations by a type-directed selective cps-transform. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Functional Programming, pp. 317–328 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sanchez Cuadrado, J.: Compiling ATL with Continuations. In: Proc. of 3rd International Workshop on Model Transformation with ATL (MtATL 2011), pp. 10–19. CEUR-WS (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sanchez Cuadrado, J., Molina, J.G.: A model-based approach to families of embedded domain-specific languages. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35, 825–840 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sloane, A.M., Kats, L.C., Visser, E.: A pure embedding of attribute grammars. Science of Computer Programming (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vanhooff, B., Ayed, D., Van Baelen, S., Joosen, W., Berbers, Y.: UniTI: A Unified Transformation Infrastructure. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Voelter, M.: A family of languages for architecture description. In: 8th OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling, DSM 2008 (October 2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wagelaar, D., Tisi, M., Cabot, J., Jouault, F.: Towards a General Composition Semantics for Rule-Based Model Transformation. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6981, pp. 623–637. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Kusel, A., Retschitzegger, W., Schönböck, 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
  24. 24.
    Yie, A., Casallas, R., Deridder, D., Wagelaar, D.: Realizing model transformation chain interoperability. Software and Systems Modeling, 1–21 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jesús Sánchez Cuadrado
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad Autónoma de MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations