Abstraction-Raising Transformation for Generating Analysis Models

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3844)


The verification of non-functional requirements of software models (such as performance, reliability, scalability, security, etc.) requires the transformation of UML models into different analysis models such as Petri nets, queueing networks, formal logic, etc., which represent the system at a higher level of abstraction. The paper proposes a new “abstraction-raising” transformation approach for generating analysis models from UML models. In general, such transformations must bridge a large semantic gap between the source and the target model. The proposed approach is illustrated by a transformation from UML to Klaper (Kernel LAnguage for PErformance and Reliability analysis of component-based systems).


Source Model Model Transformation Target Model Graph Grammar Model Drive Architecture 
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.
    Balsamo, S., Di Marco, A., Inverardi, P., Simeoni, M.: Model-based performance predic-tion in software development: a survey. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30(5), 295–310 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernardi, S., Donatelli, S., Merseguer, J.: charts to analysable Petri net models. In: Proc. of 3rd Int. Workshop on Software and Per-formance (WOSP 2002), Rome, July 2002, pp. 35–45 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cavenet, C., Gilmore, S., Hillston, J., Kloul, L., Stevens, P.: Analysing UML 2.0 activity diagrams in the software performance engineering process. In: Proc. 4th Int. Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP 2004), Redwood City, CA, January 2004, pp. 74–83 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cortellessa, V., Pompei, A.: Towards a UML profile for QoS: a contribution in the reliabil-ity domain. In: Proc. 4th Int. Workshop on Software and Performance WOSP 2004, pp. 197–206. Redwood Shores, California (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Classification of Model Transformation Approaches. In: OOPSLA 2003 Workshop on Generative Techniques in the Context of MDA (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grassi, V., Mirandola, R., Sabetta, A.: From Design to Analysis Models: A Kernel Lan-guage for Performance and Reliability Analysis of Component-based Systems. In: Proc. 5th Int. Workshop on Software and Performance WOSP 2005, Palma, Spain, July 2005, pp. 25–36 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jürjens, J., Shabalin, P.: Automated Verification of UMLsec Models for Security Re-quirements. In: Baar, T., Strohmeier, A., Moreira, A., Mellor, S.J. (eds.) UML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3273, pp. 365–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuster, J.M., Sendall, S., Wahler, M.: Comparing Two Model Transformation Ap-proaches. In: Proc. Workshop on OCL and Model Driven Engineering (October 2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mens, T., Czarnecki, K., Van Gorp, P.: A Taxonomy of Model transformations. In: Bezivin, J., Heckel, R. (eds.) Proc. of Dagstuhl 04101 Language Engineering for Model-Driven Software Development (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petriu, D.C., Shen, H.: Applying the UML Performance Profile: Graph Grammar based derivation of LQN models from UML specifications. In: Field, T., Harrison, P.G., Bradley, J., Harder, U. (eds.) TOOLS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2324, pp. 159–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Petriu, D.C., Woodside, C.M.: Performance Analysis with UML. In: Selic, B., Lavagno, L., Martin, G. (eds.) UML for Real, pp. 221–240. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    OMG, QVT-Merge Group, Revised submission for MOF 2.0 Query/Views/Transformations RFP, version 1.0 (April 2004) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG, MDA Guide, version 1.0.1 (June 2003) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    OMG, UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, and Time, version 1.0, formal/03-09-01 (September 2003) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    OMG, UML Profile for Modeling Quality of Service and Fault Tolerance Characteristics and Mechanisms (QoS), Adopted Specification, ptc/2004-06-01 (June 2004) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schürr, A.: Programmed Graph Replacement Systems. In: Rozenberg, G. (ed.) Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformations, pp. 479–546 (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Woodside, C.M., Petriu, D.C., Petriu, D.B., Shen, H., Israr, T., Merseguer, J.: Per-formance by Unified Model Analysis (PUMA). In: Proc. 5th Int. Workshop on Software and Performance WOSP 2005, Palma, Spain, July 2005, pp. 1–12 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Informatics, Systems and ProductionUniversity of “Tor Vergata”RomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Systems and Computer EngineeringCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations