Toward Bridging the Gap between Formal Foundations and Current Practice for Triple Graph Grammars

Flexible Relations between Source and Target Elements
  • Ulrike Golas
  • Leen Lambers
  • Hartmut Ehrig
  • Holger Giese
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7562)


Triple graph grammars (TGGs) are a common formalism to specify model transformations in a relational way, creating source and target models together with their correspondences. The classical theoretical model of triple graphs is based on a morphism span from the correspondence component to the source and target components. In practice, this formalization often can not be used as for certain applications no proper morphisms between the correspondence and source or target components can be found. In this paper, we introduce TGGs as plain graph grammars with special typing which avoids an extra flattening step and is more directly suitable for implementation and formal analysis due to the more flexible and homogeneous formalization. The typing expresses that each graph can be partitioned into a source, correspondence, and target component allowing arbitrary relationships between the components. We further show that the main decomposition and composition result, which is the formal basis for correctness, completeness, consistency, and functional behavior, holds analogous to the classical approach and demonstrate that classical triple graph transformation is actually a special case – after flattening – of the more flexible one.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Schürr, A.: Specification of Graph Translators with Triple Graph Grammars. In: Mayr, E.W., Schmidt, G., Tinhofer, G. (eds.) WG 1994. LNCS, vol. 903, pp. 151–163. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    König, A., Schürr, A.: Tool Integration with Triple Graph Grammars - A Survey. ENTCS 148(1), 113–150 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Ermel, C., Hermann, F., Taentzer, G.: Information Preserving Bidirectional Model Transformations. In: Dwyer, M.B., Lopes, A. (eds.) FASE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4422, pp. 72–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giese, H., Hildebrandt, S., Lambers, L.: Bridging the gap between formal semantics and implementation of triple graph grammars - ensuring conformance of relational model transformation specifications and implementations. Software and Systems Modeling (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ehrig, H., Ermel, C., Hermann, F., Prange, U.: On-the-Fly Construction, Correctness and Completeness of Model Transformations Based on Triple Graph Grammars. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 241–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klar, F., Lauder, M., Königs, A., Schürr, A.: Extended Triple Graph Grammars with Efficient and Compatible Graph Translators. In: Engels, G., Lewerentz, C., Schäfer, W., Schürr, A., Westfechtel, B. (eds.) Nagl Festschrift. LNCS, vol. 5765, pp. 141–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Golas, U., Ehrig, H., Hermann, F.: Formal Specification of Model Transformations by Triple Graph Grammars with Application Conditions. ECEASST 39 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenyer, J., Kindler, E.: Comparing relational model transformation technologies: implementing Query/View/Transformation with Triple Graph Grammars. Software and Systems Modeling 9(1), 21–46 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schäfer, W., Wagner, R., Gausemeier, J., Eckes, R.: An Engineer’s Workstation to Support Integrated Development of Flexible Production Control Systems. In: Ehrig, H., Damm, W., Desel, J., Große-Rhode, M., Reif, W., Schnieder, E., Westkämper, E. (eds.) INT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3147, pp. 48–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kindler, E., Rubin, V., Wagner, R.: An Adaptable TGG Interpreter for In-Memory Model Transformation. In: Proceedings of Fujaba Days 2004, pp. 35–38 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: Model View Management with Triple Graph Transformation Systems. In: Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Montanari, U., Ribeiro, L., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4178, pp. 351–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burmester, S., Giese, H., Niere, J., Tichy, M., Wadsack, J.P., Wagner, R., Wendehals, L., Zündorf, A.: Tool Integration at the Meta-Model Level within the FUJABA Tool Suite. Software Tools for Technology Transfer 6(3), 203–218 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Amelunxen, C., Klar, F., Königs, A., Rötschke, T., Schürr, A.: Metamodel-Based Tool Integration with MOFLON. In: Proceedings of ICSE 2008, pp. 807–810. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Lara, J., Vangheluwe, H.: Using atom3 as a meta-case tool. In: Proceedings of ICEIS 2002, pp. 642–649 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ehrig, H., Ermel, C., Hermann, F.: On the Relationship of Model Transformations based on Triple and Plain Graph Grammars. In: Proceedings of GRaMoT 2008, pp. 9–16. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brandt, C., Hermann, F., Engel, T.: Security and Consistency of IT and Business Models at Credit Suisse Realized by Graph Constraints, Transformation and Integration Using Algebraic Graph Theory. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS 2009 and EMMSAD 2009. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 339–352. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Giese, H., Lambers, L.: Towards Automatic Verification of Behavior Preservation for Model Transformation via Invariant Checking. In: Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.-J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7562, pp. 249–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giese, H., Hildebrandt, S., Lambers, L.: Toward Bridging the Gap Between Formal Semantics and Implementation of Triple Graph Grammars. In: Proceedings of MoDeVVa 2010, pp. 19–24. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. EATCS Monographs. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Guerra, E., Lara, J.: Verification and validation of declarative model-to-model transformations through invariants. J. Syst. Softw. 83(2), 283–302 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Corradini, A., Montanari, U., Rossi, F., Ehrig, H., Heckel, R., Löwe, M.: Algebraic Approaches to Graph Transformation I: Basic Concepts and Double Pushout Approach. In: Rozenberg, G. (ed.) Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation. Foundations, vol. 1, pp. 163–245. World Scientific (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ehrig, H., Golas, U., Hermann, F.: Categorical Frameworks for Graph Transformation and HLR Systems based on the DPO Approach. BEATCS 102, 111–121 (2010)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lack, S., Sobociński, P.: Adhesive Categories. In: Walukiewicz, I. (ed.) FOSSACS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2987, pp. 273–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Giese, H., Wagner, R.: From model transformation to incremental bidirectional model synchronization. Software and Systems Modeling 8(1), 21–43 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Orejas, F., Lambers, L.: Delaying Constraint Solving in Symbolic Graph Transformation. In: Ehrig, H., Rensink, A., Rozenberg, G., Schürr, A. (eds.) ICGT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6372, pp. 43–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lambers, L., Hildebrandt, S., Giese, H., Orejas, F.: Attribute Handling for Bidirectional Model Transformations: The Triple Graph Grammar Case. ECEASST (to appear, 2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrike Golas
    • 1
  • Leen Lambers
    • 2
  • Hartmut Ehrig
    • 3
  • Holger Giese
    • 2
  1. 1.Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum für Informationstechnik BerlinGermany
  2. 2.Hasso-Plattner-InstitutUniversität PotsdamGermany
  3. 3.Technische Universität BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations