Model Transformations for Migrating Legacy Models: An Industrial Case Study

  • Gehan M. K. Selim
  • Shige Wang
  • James R. Cordy
  • Juergen Dingel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7349)

Abstract

Many companies in the automotive industry have adopted MDD in their vehicle control software development. As a major automotive company, General Motors has been using a custom-built, domain-specific modeling language, implemented as an internal proprietary metamodel, to meet the modeling needs in its control software development. As AUTOSAR (AUTomotive Open System ARchitecture) is being developed as a standard to ease the process of integrating components provided by different suppliers and manufacturers, there is a growing demand to migrate these GM-specific, legacy models to AUTOSAR models. Given that AUTOSAR defines its own metamodel for various system artifacts in automotive software development, we explore using model transformations to address the challenges in migrating GM legacy models to their AUTOSAR equivalents. As a case study, we have built a model transformation using the MDWorkbench tool and the Atlas Transformation Language (ATL). This paper reports on the case study, makes observations based on our experience to assist in the development of similar types of transformations, and provides recommendations for further research.

Keywords

Model Driven Development (MDD) model transformations AUTOSAR transformation languages and tools automotive control software 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Atlas Transformation Language – ATL, http://eclipse.org/atl/
  2. 2.
    AUTOSAR Consortium. AUTOSAR, http://AUTOSAR.org/
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Bezivin, J., Brunelière, H., Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Model engineering support for tool interoperability. In: Workshop in Software Model Engineering (WiSME), Montego Bay, Jamaica (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blanc, X., Gervais, M.-P., Sriplakich, P.: Model Bus: Towards the Interoperability of Modelling Tools. In: Aßmann, U., Aksit, M., Rensink, A. (eds.) MDAFA 2003. LNCS, vol. 3599, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brunelière, H., Cabot, J., Clasen, C., Jouault, F., Bézivin, J.: Towards Model Driven Tool Interoperability: Bridging Eclipse and Microsoft Modeling Tools. In: Kühne, T., Selic, B., Gervais, M.-P., Terrier, F. (eds.) ECMFA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6138, pp. 32–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cottenier, T., Berg, A., Elrad, T.: The Motorola WEAVR:Model weaving in a large industrial context. In: Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD), Vancouver, Canada (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Daghsen, A., Chaaban, K., Saudrais, S., Leserf, P.: Applying holistic distributed scheduling to AUTOSAR Mmethodology. In: Embedded Real-Time Software & Systems (ERTSS), Toulouse, France (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drago, M.L., Ghezzi, C., Mirandola, R.: Towards Quality Driven Exploration of Model Transformation Spaces. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6981, pp. 2–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eclipse Modelling Framework (EMF), http://wiki.eclipse.org/EMF
  11. 11.
    Fleurey, F., Baudry, B., Muller, P.-A., Le Traon, Y.: Qualifying input test data for model transformations. Software System Modelling (SoSyM) 8(2), 185–203 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giese, H., Hildebrandt, S., Neumann, S.: Model Synchronization at Work: Keeping SysML and AUTOSAR Models Consistent. In: Engels, G., Lewerentz, C., Schäfer, W., Schürr, A., Westfechtel, B. (eds.) Nagl Festschrift. LNCS, vol. 5765, pp. 555–579. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    IBM Corporation. IBM Rational Asset Manager (RAM), http://www01.ibm.com/software/rational/products/ram/
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Kolovos, D., Paige, R., Polack, F.: A framework for composing modular and interoperable model management tasks. In: Model Driven Tool & Process Integration (MDTPI), Berlin, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Küster, J., Abd-El-Razik, M.: Validation of model transformations - First experiences using a white box approach. In: Model Development, Validation & Verification (MoDeVa), Genova, Italy, pp. 62–77 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mandelin, D., Kimelman, D., Yellin, D.: A Bayesian approach to diagram matching with application to architectural models. In: Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), Shanghai, China, pp. 222–231 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sodius. MDWorkbench, http://www.mdworkbench.com/
  19. 19.
    Mohagheghi, P., Dehlen, V.: Where Is the Proof? - A Review of Experiences from Applying MDE in Industry. In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5095, pp. 432–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S., Zave, P.: Matching and merging of Statechart specifications. In: Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), Minneapolis, USA, pp. 54–64 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification — Version 1.4 (April 2002) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schätz, B., Hölzl, F., Lundkvist, T.: Design-space exploration through constraint-based Mmodel transformation. In: Engineering of Computer Based Systems (ECBS), Oxford, UK, pp. 173–182 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Paternostro, M., Merks, E.: Chapter 5 Ecore Modeling Concepts. In: Eclipse Modeling Framework, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Teppola, S., Parviainen, P., Takalo, J.: Challenges in the deployment of model driven development. In: Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA), Porto, Portugal, pp. 15–20 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gehan M. K. Selim
    • 1
  • Shige Wang
    • 2
  • James R. Cordy
    • 1
  • Juergen Dingel
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ComputingQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.Electrical and Controls Integration LabGeneral Motors Research & DevelopmentWarrenUSA

Personalised recommendations