FTG+PM: An Integrated Framework for Investigating Model Transformation Chains

  • Levi Lúcio
  • Sadaf Mustafiz
  • Joachim Denil
  • Hans Vangheluwe
  • Maris Jukss
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7916)


In this paper, we describe our ongoing work on model transformation chains. Model transformation chains refer to the sequences of model transformations in Model Driven Engineering (MDE). The transformations represent and formalise typical model/software engineering activities, and their chaining is the natural composition of such activities. Model transformation chains found in industrial practice vary widely, depending on the specific domain they are used in. By explicitly modelling development activities, these activities can be analysed and the MDE process may be improved. As a step towards such analyses, we propose an integrated framework to describe all the artifacts involved in model transformation chains, as well as the means to execute “enact” those chains. We describe the Formalism Transformation Graph + Process Model (FTG+PM) which is at the heart of our framework in detail.


Model Transformation Activity Diagram Concrete Syntax Model Drive Engineer Object Node 
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.
    Sendall, S., Kozaczynski, W.: Model Transformation – The Heart and Soul of Model-Driven Software Development. IEEE Software 20(5), 42–45 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oldevik, J.: Transformation Composition Modelling Framework. In: Kutvonen, L., Alonistioti, N. (eds.) DAIS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3543, pp. 108–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vanhooff, B., Van Baelen, S., Hovsepyan, A., Joosen, W., Berbers, Y.: Towards a transformation chain modeling language. In: Vassiliadis, S., Wong, S., Hämäläinen, T.D. (eds.) SAMOS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4017, pp. 39–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Heidenreich, F., Kopcsek, J., Aßmann, U.: Safe composition of transformations. Journal of Object Technology 10(7), 1–20 (2011), Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wagelaar, D.: Blackbox composition of model transformations using domain-specific modelling languages. In: Proceedings of the First European Workshop on Composition of Model Transformations, pp. 15–20 (2006),
  7. 7.
    Seibel, A., Hebig, R., Neumann, S., Giese, H.: A Dedicated Language for Context Composition and Execution of True Black-Box Model Transformations. In: Sloane, A., Aßmann, U. (eds.) SLE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6940, pp. 19–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Mannadiar, R.: A Multi-Paradigm Modelling Approach to the Foundations of Domain-Specific Modelling. PhD thesis, McGill University (2012),
  10. 10.
    Giese, H., Levendovszky, T., Vangheluwe, H.: Summary of the Workshop on Multi-Paradigm Modeling: Concepts and Tools. In: Kühne, T. (ed.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4364, pp. 252–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dörr, H.: Efficient Graph Rewriting and Its Implementation. LNCS, vol. 922. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Lara, J., Vangheluwe, H.: AToM3: 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
  13. 13.
    Lúcio, L., Joachim, D., Vangheluwe, H.: An Overview of Model Transformations for a Simple Automotive Power Window. McGill University, Technical Report SOCS-TR-2012.2 (2012),
  14. 14.
    Mustafiz, S., et al.: The FTG+PM framework for Multi-Paradigm modelling – An automotive case study. Paper for 6th International Workshop on Multi-Paradigm Modeling (2012),
  15. 15.
    Mosterman, P., Vangheluwe, H.: Computer Automated Multi-Paradigm Modeling – An Introduction. Simulation 80(9), 433–450 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dorf, R.C.: Modern Control Systems, 12th edn. Pearson (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lúcio, L., et al.: The formalism transformation graph as a guide to model driven engineering. McGill University, Technical Report SOCS-TR-2012.1 (2012),
  18. 18.
    Bottoni, P., Saporito, A.: Resource-based enactment and adaptation of workflows from activity diagrams. Electronic Communications of the EASST 18 (2009),
  19. 19.
    Favre, J.-M.: Foundations of Model (Driven) (Reverse) Engineering: Models - Episode I: Stories of The Fidus Papyrus and of The Solarus. In: Language Engineering for Model-Driven Software Development, Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany (2004),
  20. 20.
    Favre, J.-M.: Foundations of Model (Driven) (Reverse) Foundations of Meta-Pyramids: Languages vs. Metamodels - Episode II: Story of Thotus the Baboon. In: Language Engineering for Model-Driven Software Development, Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany (2005),
  21. 21.
    Rivera, J., et al.: Orchestrating ATL model transformations. Model Transformation with ATL, 34–46 (2009),
  22. 22.
    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
  23. 23.
    Paige, R., et al.: The Design of a Conceptual Framework and Technical Infrastructure for Model Management Language Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2009 14th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS 2009), pp. 162–171. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aldazabal, A., et al.: Automated model driven development processes. In: ECMDA Workshop on Model Driven Tool and Process Integration 2008, pp. 43–54. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag (2008),
  25. 25.
    Diaw, S., Lbath, R., Coulette, B.: Specification and Implementation of SPEM4MDE, a metamodel for MDE software processes. In: Proceedings of SEKE 2011, pp. 646–653. Knowledge Systems Institute Graduate School (2011),
  26. 26.
    Chou, S.-C.: A process modeling language consisting of high level UML-based diagrams and low level process language. Journal of Object Technology 1(4), 137–163 (2002), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bendraou, R., et al.: Definition of an executable SPEM 2.0. In: Proceedings of the 14th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC 2007), pp. 390–397. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Object Management Group: Software & Systems Process Engineering Metamodel Specification (SPEM) Version 2.0 formal specification – formal/2008-04-0 (2008),
  29. 29.
    Amrani, M., et al.: Towards a Model Transformation Intent Catalog. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on the Analysis of Model Transformation (AMT 2012), pp. 3–8. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Amrani, M., et al.: A Tridimensional Approach for Studying the Formal Verification of Model Transformations. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST 2012), pp. 921–928. IEEE Computer Society (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Levi Lúcio
    • 1
  • Sadaf Mustafiz
    • 1
  • Joachim Denil
    • 2
    • 1
  • Hans Vangheluwe
    • 2
    • 1
  • Maris Jukss
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceMcGill UniversityCanada
  2. 2.University of AntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations