Translational Semantics of a Co-evolution Specific Language with the EMF Transformation Virtual Machine

  • Dennis Wagelaar
  • Ludovico Iovino
  • Davide Di Ruscio
  • Alfonso Pierantonio
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7307)


Model-to-model transformations are often employed to establish translational semantics of Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs) by mapping high-level models into more concrete ones. Such semantics are also executable when there exists a target platform able to execute the target models. Conceiving a transformation that targets a low-level language still remains arduous due to the large semantic gap between the DSL and the corresponding target language. In this respect, depending on the domain of the DSL, this task can be made easier by reusing an existing platform and bytecode language for that domain, as for instance the EMF Transformation Virtual Machine (EMFTVM) for the domain of model transformation. This paper defines executable semantics for EMFMigrate, a model transformation language specifically designed for managing the coupled evolution in model-driven development. To this end, the approach considers EMFTVM as the runtime engine targeted by the proposed semantic mappings.


Virtual Machine Model Transformation Code Block Concrete Syntax Eclipse Modeling Framework 
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.
    van Deursen, A., Klint, P., Visser, J.: Domain-Specific Languages: An Annotated Bibliography. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 35, 26–36 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cuadrado, J., Molina, J.: A model-based approach to families of embedded domain-specific languages. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35, 825–840 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, K., Sztipanovits, J., Abdelwalhed, S., Jackson, E.: Semantic Anchoring with Model Transformations. In: Hartman, A., Kreische, D. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3748, pp. 115–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bryant, B.R., Gray, J., Mernik, M., Clarke, P.J., France, R.B., Karsai, G.: Challenges and Directions in Formalizing the Semantics of Modeling Languages. Computer Science and Information Systems 8, 225–253 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wagelaar, D., Tisi, M., Cabot, J., Jouault, F.: Towards a General Composition Semantics for Rule-Based Model Transformation. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6981, pp. 623–637. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I.: ATL: A model transformation tool. Science of Computer Programming 72, 31–39 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Di Ruscio, D., Iovino, L., Pierantonio, A.: What is needed for managing co-evolution in MDE? In: Proceedings of the 2nd IWMCP 2011, pp. 30–38. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wachsmuth, G.: Metamodel Adaptation and Model Co-adaptation. In: Ernst, E. (ed.) ECOOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4609, pp. 600–624. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Varró, G., Friedl, K., Varró, D.: Adaptive Graph Pattern Matching for Model Transformations using Model-sensitive Search Plans. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 152, 191–205 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cicchetti, A., Di Ruscio, D., Eramo, R., Pierantonio, A.: Automating Co-evolution in Model-Driven Engineering. In: 12th International IEEE ECOC 2008, Munich, Germany, September 15-19, pp. 222–231. IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rose, L.M., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C.: Model Migration with Epsilon Flock. In: Tratt, L., Gogolla, M. (eds.) ICMT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6142, pp. 184–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garcés, K., Jouault, F., Cointe, P., Bézivin, J.: Managing Model Adaptation by Precise Detection of Metamodel Changes. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 34–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Benz, S., Juergens, E.: COPE - Automating Coupled Evolution of Metamodels and Models. In: Drossopoulou, S. (ed.) ECOOP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5653, pp. 52–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levendovszky, T., Balasubramanian, D., Narayanan, A., Karsai, G.: A Novel Approach to Semi-automated Evolution of DSML Model Transformation. In: van den Brand, M., Gašević, D., Gray, J. (eds.) SLE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5969, pp. 23–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Di Ruscio, D., Lämmel, R., Pierantonio, A.: Automated Co-evolution of GMF Editor Models. In: Malloy, B., Staab, S., van den Brand, M. (eds.) SLE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6563, pp. 143–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cicchetti, A., Di Ruscio, D., Pierantonio, A.: A Metamodel Independent Approach to Difference Representation. Journal of Object Technology 6, 165–185 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cicchetti, A., Di Ruscio, D., Pierantonio, A.: Managing Model Conflicts in Distributed Development. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 311–325. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Planas, E., Cabot, J., Gómez, C.: Two Basic Correctness Properties for ATL Transformations: Executability and Coverage. In: MtATL 2011. CEUR-WS, vol. 742, pp. 1–9 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kats, L.C.L., Visser, E.: The Spoofax Language Workbench. Rules for Declarative Specification of Languages and IDEs. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM SIGPLAN OOPSLA 2010, pp. 444–463. ACM Press (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bravenboer, M., Kalleberg, K.T., Vermaas, R., Visser, E.: Stratego/XT 0.17. A language and toolset for program transformation. Science of Computer Programming 72, 52–70 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lindeman, R.T., Kats, L.C.L., Visser, E.: Declaratively defining domain-specific language debuggers. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM GPCE 2011, pp. 127–136. ACM Press (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tolvanen, J.P., Rossi, M.: MetaEdit+: defining and using domain-specific modeling languages and code generators. In: Companion of the 18th Annual ACM SIGPLAN OOPSLA 2003, Anaheim, CA, USA, pp. 92–93. ACM Press (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dmitriev, S.: Language Oriented Programming: The Next Programming Paradigm (2004),
  24. 24.
    Solmi, R.: Whole Platform. Phd thesis, Università di Bologna e Padova (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    de Lara, J., Vangheluwe, H., Alfonseca, M.: Meta-Modelling and Graph Grammars for Multi-Paradigm Modelling in AToM3. Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM) 3, 194–209 (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: On the Architectural Alignment of ATL and QVT. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM SAC 2006, Dijon, France (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Syriani, E., Vangheluwe, H.: De-/Re-constructing Model Transformation Languages. In: GT-VMT. Electronic Communications of the EASST, vol. 29 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis Wagelaar
    • 1
  • Ludovico Iovino
    • 2
  • Davide Di Ruscio
    • 2
  • Alfonso Pierantonio
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità degli Studi dell’AquilaL’AquilaItaly

Personalised recommendations