Transformation as Search

  • Mathias Kleiner
  • Marcos Didonet Del Fabro
  • Davi De Queiroz Santos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7949)


In model-driven engineering, model transformations are considered a key element to generate and maintain consistency between related models. Rule-based approaches have become a mature technology and are widely used in different application domains. However, in various scenarios, these solutions still suffer from a number of limitations that stem from their injective and deterministic nature. This article proposes an original approach, based on non-deterministic constraint-based search engines, to define and execute bidirectional model transformations and synchronizations from single specifications. Since these solely rely on basic existing modeling concepts, it does not require the introduction of a dedicated language. We first describe and formally define this model operation, called transformation as search, then describe a proof-of-concept implementation and discuss experiments on a reference use case in software engineering.


Source Model Constraint Programming Partial Model Target Model Relational Schema 
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.
  2. 2.
    Akehurst, D.H., Kent, S., Patrascoiu, O.: A relational approach to defining and implementing transformations between metamodels. Software and System Modeling 2(4), 215–239 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ATL Class to Relational transformation, (March 2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergmann, G., Ökrös, A., Ráth, I., Varró, D., Varró, G.: Incremental pattern matching in the viatra model transformation system. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Graph and Model Transformations, GRaMoT 2008, pp. 25–32. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: Umltocsp: a tool for the formal verification of uml/ocl models using constraint programming. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 547–548 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Czarnecki, K., Foster, J.N., Hu, Z., Lämmel, R., Schürr, A., Terwilliger, J.F.: Bidirectional transformations: A cross-discipline perspective. In: Paige, R.F. (ed.) ICMT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5563, pp. 260–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst. J. 45, 621–645 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Ehrig, K., Guerra, E., de Lara, J., Lengyel, L., Levendovszky, T., Prange, U., Taentzer, G., Varró, D., Varró-Gyapay, S.: Model transformation by graph transformation: A comparative study. In: MoDELS Satellite Events (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Didonet Del Fabro, M.: Metadata management using model weaving and model transformations. PhD thesis, University of Nantes (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fujaba Tool Suite (2011),
  12. 12.
    Gogolla, M., Büttner, F., Richters, M.: Use: A uml-based specification environment for validating uml and ocl. Sci. Comput. Program. 69(1-3), 27–34 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hearnden, D., Lawley, M., Raymond, K.: Incremental model transformation for the evolution of model-driven systems. In: Wang, J., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 321–335. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hettel, T., Lawley, M., Raymond, K.: Towards model round-trip engineering: An abductive approach. In: Paige, R.F. (ed.) ICMT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5563, pp. 100–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Jackson, D.: Automating first-order relational logic. In: FSE, pp. 130–139 (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jaffar, J., Maher, M.J.: Constraint logic programming: A survey. J. Log. Program. 19(20), 503–581 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jouault, F., Bézivin, J.: KM3: A DSL for metamodel specification. In: Gorrieri, R., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) FMOODS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4037, pp. 171–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming models with ATL. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 128–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kessentini, M., Sahraoui, H.A., Boukadoum, M.: Model transformation as an optimization problem. In: Proceedings of the MoDELS Conference, pp. 159–173 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kleiner, M., Didonet Del Fabro, M., Albert, P.: Model search: Formalizing and automating constraint solving in MDE platforms. In: Kühne, T., Selic, B., Gervais, M.-P., Terrier, F. (eds.) ECMFA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6138, pp. 173–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kühne, T.: Matters of (meta-)modeling. Software and System Modeling 5(4), 369–385 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lawley, M., Steel, J.: Practical declarative model transformation with tefkat. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 139–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Object Management Group. Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation (QVT) Specification, version 1.1 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    OCL 2.0 specification (2008),
  26. 26.
    Petter, A., Behring, A., Mühlhäuser, M.: Solving constraints in model transformations. In: Paige, R.F. (ed.) ICMT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5563, pp. 132–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schürr, 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
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    Vogel, T., Neumann, S., Hildebrandt, S., Giese, H., Becker, B.: Incremental model synchronization for efficient run-time monitoring. In: Ghosh, S. (ed.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6002, pp. 124–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    White, J., Schmidt, D.C., Benavides, D., Trinidad, P., Ruiz-Cortez, A.: Automated diagnosis of product-line configuration errors in feature models. In: Proceedings of the Software Product Lines Conference (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathias Kleiner
    • 2
  • Marcos Didonet Del Fabro
    • 1
  • Davi De Queiroz Santos
    • 1
  1. 1.C3SL Labs, Depto. de InformaticaUniversidade Federal do Parana’CuritibaBrazil
  2. 2.CNRS, LSISArts et Métiers ParisTechMétiersFrance

Personalised recommendations