Weaving-Based Configuration and Modular Transformation of Multi-layer Systems

  • Galina Besova
  • Sven Walther
  • Heike Wehrheim
  • Steffen Becker
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7590)


In model-driven development of multi-layer systems (e.g. application, platform and infrastructure), each layer is usually described by separate models. When generating analysis models or code, these separate models first of all need to be linked. Hence, existing model transformations for single layers cannot be simply re-used.

In this paper, we present a modular approach to the transformation of multi-layer systems. It employs model weaving to define the interconnections between models of different layers. The weaving models themselves are subject to model transformations: The result of transforming a weaving model constitutes a configuration for the models obtained by transforming single layers, thereby allowing for a re-use of existing model transformations. We exemplify our approach by the generation of analysis models for component-based software.


Model weaving multi-layer systems model transformations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF),
  2. 2.
    Failures-Divergence Refinement (FDR2),
  3. 3.
    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Anwar, A., Ebersold, S., Nassar, M., Coulette, B., Kriouile, A.: Towards a generic approach for model composition. In: The Third International Conference on Software Engineering Advances, ICSEA 2008, pp. 83–90 (October 2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balasubramanian, K., Schmidt, D.C., Molnar, Z., Ledeczi, A.: Component-based system integration via (meta)model composition. In: 14th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, ECBS 2007, pp. 93–102 (March 2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Becker, S., Koziolek, H., Reussner, R.: The Palladio component model for model-driven performance prediction. Journal of Systems and Software 82, 3–22 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Besova, G., Wehrheim, H., Wagner, A.: Reputation-based reliability prediction of service compositions. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 279(2), 3–16 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bézivin, J., Büttner, F., Gogolla, M., Jouault, F., Kurtev, I., Lindow, A.: Model Transformations? Transformation Models! In: Wang, J., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 440–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bräuer, M., Lochmann, H.: Towards semantic integration of multiple domain-specific languages using ontological foundations. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on (Software) Language Engineering, ATEM 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Didonet del Fabro, M.: Metadata management using model weaving and model transformation. Ph.D. thesis, Universite de Nantes (September 2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Del Fabro, M.D., Valduriez, P.: Towards the efficient development of model transformations using model weaving and matching transformations. Software and System Modeling 8(3), 305–324 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Foster, H., Emmerich, W., Kramer, J., Magee, J., Rosenblum, D.S., Uchitel, S.: Model checking service compositions under resource constraints. In: ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE, pp. 225–234 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Foster, H., Uchitel, S., Magee, J., Kramer, J.: An integrated workbench for model-based engineering of service compositions. IEEE T. Services Computing 3(2), 131–144 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Groher, I., Völter, M.: Aspect-oriented model-driven software product line engineering. T. Aspect-Oriented Software Development VI 6, 111–152 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guerra, E., de Lara, J., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., dos Santos, O.M.: transML: A Family of Languages to Model Model Transformations. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6394, pp. 106–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hermann, F., Ehrig, H., Orejas, F., Czarnecki, K., Diskin, Z., Xiong, Y.: Correctness of Model Synchronization Based on Triple Graph Grammars. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6981, pp. 668–682. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating sequential processes. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johannes, J., Aßmann, U.: Concern-Based (de)composition of Model-Driven Software Development Processes. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6395, pp. 47–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I.: ATL: a model transformation tool. Science of Computer Programming 72(1-2), 31–39 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kapova, L., Reussner, R.: Application of Advanced Model-Driven Techniques in Performance Engineering. In: Aldini, A., Bernardo, M., Bononi, L., Cortellessa, V. (eds.) EPEW 2010. LNCS, vol. 6342, pp. 17–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kappel, G., Wimmer, M., Retschitzegger, W., Schwinger, W.: Leveraging Model-Based Tool Integration by Conceptual Modeling Techniques. In: Kaschek, R., Delcambre, L. (eds.) The Evolution of Conceptual Modeling. LNCS, vol. 6520, pp. 254–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kelsen, P., Ma, Q.: A Modular Model Composition Technique. In: Rosenblum, D.S., Taentzer, G. (eds.) FASE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6013, pp. 173–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oldevik, J.: Transformation Composition Modelling Framework. In: Kutvonen, L., Alonistioti, N. (eds.) DAIS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3543, pp. 1135–1136. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Salmi, N., Ioualalen, M.: Towards Efficient Component Performance Analysis in Component Based Architectures. In: Biffl, S., Winkler, D., Bergsmann, J., Aalst, W., Mylopoulos, J., Rosemann, M., Shaw, M.J., Szyperski, C. (eds.) Software Quality. Process Automation in Software Development. LNBIP, vol. 94, pp. 121–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schrr, A., Klar, F.: 15 Years of Triple Graph Grammars. In: Ehrig, H., Heckel, R., Rozenberg, G., Taentzer, G. (eds.) ICGT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5214, pp. 411–425. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sen, S., Moha, N., Baudry, B., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Meta-model Pruning. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 32–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stahl, T., Völter, M., Bettin, J., von Stockfleth, B.: Model-driven software development: technology, engineering, management. Wiley Software Patterns Series. John Wiley, Chichester (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tisi, M., Jouault, F., Fraternali, P., Ceri, S., Bézivin, J.: On the Use of Higher-Order Model Transformations. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 18–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vara, J.M., de Castro, V., Del Fabro, M.D., Marcos, E.: Using weaving models to automate model-driven web engineering proposals. IJCAT 39(4), 245–252 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Varró, D., Asztalos, M., Bisztray, D., Boronat, A., Dang, D.-H., Geiß, R., Greenyer, J., Van Gorp, P., Kniemeyer, O., Narayanan, A., Rencis, E., Weinell, E.: Transformation of UML Models to CSP: A Case Study for Graph Transformation Tools. In: Schürr, A., Nagl, M., Zündorf, A. (eds.) AGTIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 5088, pp. 540–565. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wagelaar, D.: Composition Techniques for Rule-Based Model Transformation Languages. In: Vallecillo, A., Gray, J., Pierantonio, A. (eds.) ICMT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5063, pp. 152–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wimmer, M., Kusel, A., Retschitzegger, W., Schönböck, J., Schwinger, W., Sánchez Cuadrado, J., Guerra, E., De Lara, J.: Reusing model transformations across heterogeneous metamodels. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Multi-Paradigm Modeling @ MoDELS (2011),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Galina Besova
    • 1
  • Sven Walther
    • 1
  • Heike Wehrheim
    • 1
  • Steffen Becker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations