A Model-Based Development Approach for Model Transformations

  • Shekoufeh Kolahdouz-Rahimi
  • Kevin Lano
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7141)


Model transformations have become a key element of model-driven software development, being used to transform platform-independent models (PIMs) to platform-specific models (PSMs), to improve model quality, to introduce design patterns and refactorings, and to map models from one language to another. A large number of model transformation notations and tools exist, however, there remain substantial problems concerning the analysis and verification of model transformations. In particular, there is no systematic development process for model transformations.

In this paper, we provide a unified semantic treatment of model transformations, and show how correctness properties of model transformations can be defined. We define a systematic model-driven development process for model transformations based on this semantics, and we describe case studies using this process.


Source Model Model Transformation Target Model Object Constraint Language Graph Grammar 
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.
    Akehurst, D., Howells, W., McDonald-Maier, K.: Kent Model Transformation Language. Model Transformations in Practice (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akehurst, D.H., Caskurlu, B.: A Relational Approach to Defining Transformations in a Metamodel. In: Jézéquel, J.-M., Hussmann, H., Cook, S. (eds.) UML 2002. LNCS, vol. 2460, pp. 243–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cabot, J., Clariso, R., Guerra, E., De Lara, J.: Verification and Validation of Declarative Model-to-Model Transformations Through Invariants. Journal of Systems and Software (2009) (preprint)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cuadrado, J., Molina, J.: Modularisation of model transformations through a phasing mechanism. Software Systems Modelling 8(3), 325–345 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Rozenberg, H.-J. (eds.): Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, vol. 2. World Scientific Press (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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. LNCS, vol. 6394, pp. 106–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grønmo, R., Møller-Pedersen, B., Olsen, G.K.: Comparison of Three Model Transformation Languages. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 2–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Carter, K.: Executable UML (2010),
  10. 10.
    Kermeta (2010),
  11. 11.
    Kolovos, D., Paige, R., Polack, F.: The Epsilon Transformation Language. In: Vallecillo, A., Gray, J., Pierantonio, A. (eds.) ICMT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5063, pp. 46–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kurtev, I., Van den Berg, K., Joualt, F.: Rule-based modularisation in model transformation languages illustrated with ATL. In: Proceedings 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2006), pp. 1202–1209. ACM Press (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lano, K.: The B Language and Method. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lano, K.: Constraint-Driven Development. Information and Software Technology 50, 406–423 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lano, K.: A Compositional Semantics of UML-RSDS. SoSyM 8(1), 85–116 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lano, K. (ed.): UML 2 Semantics and Applications. Wiley (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lano, K., Kolahdouz-Rahimi, S.: Specification and Verification of Model Transformations using UML-RSDS. In: Méry, D., Merz, S. (eds.) IFM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6396, pp. 199–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    OMG, UML superstructure, version 2.1.1. OMG document formal/2007-02-03, (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    OMG, Query/View/Transformation Specification, ptc/05-11-01, (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    OMG, Query/View/Transformation Specification, annex A (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rose, L., Kolovos, D., Paige, R., Polack, F.: Model Migration Case for TTC 2010, Dept. of Computer Science, University of York (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schurr, A.: Specification of Graph Translators with Triple Graph Grammars. In: Mayr, E.W., Schmidt, G., Tinhofer, G. (eds.) WG 1994. LNCS, vol. 903, pp. 151–163. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stevens, P.: Bidirectional model transformations in QVT. SoSyM 9(1) (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Varro, D., Pataricza, A.: Automated Formal Verification of Model Transformations. In: CSDUML 2003 Workshop (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shekoufeh Kolahdouz-Rahimi
    • 1
  • Kevin Lano
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of InformaticsKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations