Advertisement

Showing Full Semantics Preservation in Model Transformation - A Comparison of Techniques

  • Mathias Hülsbusch
  • Barbara König
  • Arend Rensink
  • Maria Semenyak
  • Christian Soltenborn
  • Heike Wehrheim
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6396)

Abstract

Model transformation is a prime technique in modern, model-driven software design. One of the most challenging issues is to show that the semantics of the models is not affected by the transformation. So far, there is hardly any research into this issue, in particular in those cases where the source and target languages are different.

In this paper, we are using two different state-of-the-art proof techniques (explicit bisimulation construction versus borrowed contexts) to show bisimilarity preservation of a given model transformation between two simple (self-defined) languages, both of which are equipped with a graph transformation-based operational semantics. The contrast between these proof techniques is interesting because they are based on different model transformation strategies: triple graph grammars versus in situ transformation. We proceed to compare the proofs and discuss scalability to a more realistic setting.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barbosa, P.E.S., Ramalho, F., de Figueiredo, J.C.A., dos, S., Junior, A.D., Costa, A., Gomes, L.: Checking semantics equivalence of MDA transformations in concurrent systems. The Journal of Universal Computer Science 11, 2196–2224 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baresi, L., Ehrig, K., Heckel, R.: Verification of model transformations: A case study with BPEL. In: Montanari, U., Sannella, D., Bruni, R. (eds.) TGC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4661, pp. 183–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bisztray, D., Heckel, R., Ehrig, H.: Verification of architectural refactorings by rule extraction. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Inverardi, P. (eds.) FASE 2008. LNCS, vol. 4961, pp. 347–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ehrig, H., König, B.: Deriving bisimulation congruences in the DPO approach to graph rewriting with borrowed contexts. MSCS 16(6), 1133–1163 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Engels, G., Kleppe, A., Rensink, A., Semenyak, M., Soltenborn, C., Wehrheim, H.: From UML Activities to TAAL - Towards Behaviour-Preserving Model Transformations. In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5095, pp. 94–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Giese, H., Glesner, S., Leitner, J., Schäfer, W., Wagner, R.: Towards verified model transformations. In: Workshop on Model Development, Validation and Verification, pp. 78–93 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gorp, P.V., Stenten, H., Mens, T., Demeyer, S.: Towards automating source-consistent UML refactorings. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 144–158. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hausmann, J.: Dynamic Meta Modeling: A Semantics Description Technique for Visual Modeling Languages. PhD thesis, University of Paderborn (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hirschkoff, D.: On the benefits of using the up-to techniques for bisimulation verification. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 285–299. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hülsbusch, M., König, B., Rensink, A., Semenyak, M., Soltenborn, C., Wehrheim, H.: Full semantics preservation in model transformation – a comparison of proof techniques. Technical Report TR-CTIT-10-09, CTIT, University of Twente (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kastenberg, H., Kleppe, A., Rensink, A.: Defining object-oriented execution semantics using graph transformations. In: Gorrieri, R., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) FMOODS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4037, pp. 186–201. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Königs, A.: Model transformation with triple graph grammars. In: Workshop on Model Transformations in Practice (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Küster, J., Gschwind, T., Zimmermann, O.: Incremental development of model transformation chains using automated testing. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 733–747. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leifer, J., Milner, R.: Deriving bisimulation congruences for reactive systems. In: Palamidessi, C. (ed.) CONCUR 2000. LNCS, vol. 1877, pp. 243–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McComb, T., Smith, G.: Architectural Design in Object-Z. In: ASWEC 2004, pp. 77–86. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mens, T., Tourwé, T.: A survey of software refactoring. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 30(2), 126–139 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Narayanan, A., Karsai, G.: Towards verifying model transformations. In: GT-VMT 2006. ENTCS, vol. 211, pp. 185–194 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Necula, G.: Translation validation for an optimizing compiler. In: PLDI 2000. SIGPlan Notices, vol. 35, pp. 83–95. ACM, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) – Superstructure, Version 2.2 (2009), http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/09-02-02.pdf
  20. 20.
    Pérez, J., Crespo, Y.: Exploring a method to detect behaviour-preserving evolution using graph transformation. In: Third International ERCIM Workshop on Software Evolution, pp. 114–122 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rangel, G., König, B., Ehrig, H.: Deriving bisimulation congruences in the presence of negative application conditions. In: Amadio, R.M. (ed.) FOSSACS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4962, pp. 413–427. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rangel, G., Lambers, L., König, B., Ehrig, H., Baldan, P.: Behavior preservation in model refactoring using DPO transformations with borrowed contexts. In: Ehrig, H., Heckel, R., Rozenberg, G., Taentzer, G. (eds.) ICGT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5214, pp. 242–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ruhroth, T., Wehrheim, H.: Refactoring object-oriented specifications with data and processes. In: Bonsangue, M.M., Johnsen, E.B. (eds.) FMOODS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4468, pp. 236–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    van Glabbeek, R.: The linear time - branching time spectrum II. In: Best, E. (ed.) CONCUR 1993. LNCS, vol. 715, pp. 66–81. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Kempen, M., Chaudron, M., Kourie, D., Boake, A.: Towards proving preservation of behaviour of refactoring of UML models. In: SAICSIT 2005, pp. 252–259 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathias Hülsbusch
    • 1
  • Barbara König
    • 1
  • Arend Rensink
    • 2
  • Maria Semenyak
    • 3
  • Christian Soltenborn
    • 3
  • Heike Wehrheim
    • 3
  1. 1.Abteilung für Informatik und Angewandte KognitionswissenschaftUniversität Duisburg-EssenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TwenteThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Institut für InformatikUniversität PaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations