Model Transformation Analysis: Staying Ahead of the Maintenance Nightmare

  • Marcel F. van Amstel
  • Mark G. J. van den Brand
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6707)


Model-driven engineering (MDE) is a software engineering discipline that is gaining popularity, both in academia and industry. One of the integral concepts of MDE is model transformation. The prominent role of model transformations in MDE requires them to be treated in a similar way as traditional software artifacts. Numerous analysis techniques supporting the maintenance process exist for traditional software artifacts. However, few techniques tailored towards analyzing model transformations currently exist. We present in this paper three complementary techniques for the analysis of model transformations. These techniques are mainly focused on increasing the understanding of model transformations. Two of the proposed techniques have already been employed for the analysis of different kinds of software artifacts, viz. metrics, and structure and trace analysis. The third analysis technique, i.e., metamodel coverage analysis is specific for model transformations and does therefore not exist for different kinds of software artifacts.


Model Transformation Coverage Analysis Transformation Function Maintenance Process Transformation Formalism 
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.
    Schmidt, D.C.: Model-Driven Engineering. Computer 39(2), 25–31 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Deursen, A., Klint, P., Visser, J.: Domain-Specific Languages: An Annotated Bibliography. SIGPLAN Notices 35(6), 26–36 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sendall, S., Kozaczynski, W.: Model Transformation: The Heart and Soul of Model-Driven Software Development. IEEE Software 20(5), 42–45 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mohagheghi, P., Fernandez, M.A., Martell, J.A., Fritzsche, M., Gilani, W.: MDE Adoption in Industry: Challenges and Success Criteria. In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5095, pp. 54–59. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mohagheghi, P., Dehlen, V.: Where Is the Proof?–A Review of Experiences from Applying MDE in Industry. In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5095, pp. 432–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Storey, M.A.D., Wong, K., Muller, H.A.: How do program understanding tools affect how programmers understand programs? Science of Computer Programming 36(2–3), 183–207 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Haase, A., Vlter, M., Efftinge, S., Kolb, B.: Introduction to openArchitectureWare 4.1.2. Model-Driven Development Tool Implementers Forum (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    OMG: Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation Specification. formal/ 2008-04-03, Object Management Group (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fenton, N.E., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software Metrics: A Rigorous & Practical Approach, 2nd edn. PWS Publishing Co. (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mohagheghi, P., Dehlen, V.: Developing a Quality Framework for Model-Driven Engineering. In: Giese, H. (ed.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5002, pp. 275–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Amstel, M., Lange, C.F.J., van den Brand, M.: Using Metrics for Assessing the Quality of ASF+SDF Model Transformations. In: Paige, R.F. (ed.) ICMT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5563, pp. 239–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Amstel, M., van den Brand, M.: Quality Assessment of ATL Model Transformations using Metrics. In: Second International Workshop on Model Transformation with ATL (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Amstel, M., van den Brand, M., Nguyen, P.H.: Metrics for model transformations. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Belgian-Netherlands Software Evolution Workshop. (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Deursen, A., Heering, J., Klint, P. (eds.): Language Prototyping: An Algebraic Specification Approach. World Scientific, Singapore (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fowler, M.: Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boehm, B.W., Brown, J.R., Kaspar, H., Lipow, M., Macleod, G.J., Merrit, M.J.: Characteristics of Software Quality. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1978)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Amstel, M.: The Right Tool for the Right Job: Measuring Model Transformation Quality. In: Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Workshop on Quality Oriented Reuse of Software, pp. 69–74. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO - International Organization for Standardization: International Standard ISO/IEC 25000 - Software engineering – Software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation, SQuaRE (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Systems Journal 45(5), 621–645 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cornelissen, B., Holten, D., Zaidman, A., Moonen, L., van Wijk, J.J., van Deursen, A.: Understanding Execution Traces Using Massive Sequence and Circular Bundle Views. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension, pp. 49–58. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stevens, W.P., Myers, G.J., Constantine, L.L.: Structured design. IBM Systems Journal 13(2), 115–139 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Holten, D., van Wijk, J.J.: Visual comparison of hierarchically organized data. Computer Graphics Forum 27(3), 759–766 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Amstel, M., van den Brand, M., Engelen, L.J.P.: An Exercise in Iterative Domain-Specific Language Design. In: Proceedings of the Joint ERCIM Workshop on Software Evolution and International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution, pp. 48–57. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Kster, J.M.: Analysis of Model Transformations via Alloy. In: Proceedings of the fourth workshop on Model-Driven Engineering, Verification and Validation, pp. 47–56 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kapová, L., Goldschmidt, T., Becker, S., Henss, J.: Evaluating Maintainability with Code Metrics for Model-to-Model Transformations. In: Heineman, G.T., Kofron, J., Plasil, F. (eds.) QoSA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6093, pp. 151–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang, J., Kim, S.K., Carrington, D.: Verifying metamodel coverage of model transformations. In: Proceedings of the Australian Software Engineering Conference, pp. 270–282. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McQuillan, J.A., Power, J.F.: White-Box Coverage Criteria for Model Transformations. In: First International Workshop on Model Transformation with ATL (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcel F. van Amstel
    • 1
  • Mark G. J. van den Brand
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations