Verification of ATL Transformations Using Transformation Models and Model Finders

  • Fabian Büttner
  • Marina Egea
  • Jordi Cabot
  • Martin Gogolla
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7635)


In model-driven engineering, models constitute pivotal elements of the software to be built. If models are specified well, transformations can be employed for different purposes, e.g., to produce final code. However, it is important that models produced by a transformation from valid input models are valid, too, where validity refers to the metamodel constraints, often written in OCL. Transformation models are a way to describe this Hoare-style notion of partial correctness of model transformations using only metamodels and constraints. In this paper, we provide an automatic translation of declarative, rule-based ATL transformations into such transformation models, providing an intuitive and versatile encoding of ATL into OCL that can be used for the analysis of various properties of transformations. We furthermore show how existing model verifiers (satisfiability checkers) for OCL-annotated metamodels can be applied for the verification of the translated ATL transformations, providing evidence for the effectiveness of our approach in practice.


Model transformation Verification ATL OCL 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Georg, G., Ray, I.: UML2Alloy: A Challenging Model Transformation. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MoDELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 436–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asztalos, M., Lengyel, L., Levendovszky, T.: Towards Automated, Formal Verification of Model Transformations. In: Proc. ICST 2010, pp. 15–24. IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braga, C., Menezes, R., Comicio, T., Santos, C., Landim, E.: On the Specification, Verification and Implementation of Model Transformations with Transformation Contracts. In: Simao, A., Morgan, C. (eds.) SBMF 2011. LNCS, vol. 7021, pp. 108–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Büttner, F., Cabot, J., Gogolla, M.: On Validation of ATL Transformation Rules By Transformation Models. In: Proc. MoDeVVa 2011. ACM Digital Library (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Büttner, F., Egea, M., Cabot, J.: On Verifying ATL Transformations Using ‘off-the-shelf’ SMT Solvers. In: France, R.B., Kazmeier, J., Breu, R., Atkinson, C. (eds.) MODELS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7590, pp. 432–448. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bézivin, J., Büttner, F., Gogolla, M., Jouault, F., Kurtev, I., Lindow, A.: Model Transformations? Transformation Models! In: Wang, J., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 440–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: Verification and validation of declarative model-to-model transformations through invariants. Journal of Systems and Software 83(2), 283–302 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: UMLtoCSP: a tool for the formal verification of UML/OCL models using constraint programming. In: Proc. Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2007. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cariou, E., Belloir, N., Barbier, F., Djemam, N.: OCL contracts for the verification of model transformations. Electronic Communications of the EASST 24 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clavel, M., Egea, M., de Dios, M.A.G.: Checking Unsatisfiability for OCL Constraints. Electronic Communications of the EASST 24, 1–13 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gogolla, M.: Tales of ER and RE Syntax and Semantics. In: Transformation Techniques in Software Engineering. Dagstuhl Seminar Proc., vol. 05161. IBFI (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gogolla, M., Vallecillo, A.: Tractable Model Transformation Testing. In: France, R.B., Kuester, J.M., Bordbar, B., Paige, R.F. (eds.) ECMFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6698, pp. 221–235. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guerra, E., de Lara, J., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F.: A Visual Specification Language for Model-to-Model Transformations. In: 2010 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC 2010), pp. 119–126. IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Inaba, K., Hidaka, S., Hu, Z., Kato, H., Nakano, K.: Graph-transformation verification using monadic second-order logic. In: Proc. ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, PPDP 2011, pp. 17–28. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I.: ATL: A model transformation tool. Sci. Comput. Program. 72(1-2), 31–39 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jouault, F., Bézivin, J.: KM3: A DSL for Metamodel Specification. In: Gorrieri, R., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) FMOODS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4037, pp. 171–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Kuhlmann, M., Hamann, L., Gogolla, M.: Extensive Validation of OCL Models by Integrating SAT Solving into USE. In: Bishop, J., Vallecillo, A. (eds.) TOOLS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6705, pp. 290–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lúcio, L., Barroca, B., Amaral, V.: A Technique for Automatic Validation of Model Transformations. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6394, pp. 136–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    OMG: The Object Constraint Language Specification v. 2.2 (Document formal/2010-02-01). Object Management Group, Inc., Internet (2010),
  21. 21.
    OMG: Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification 2.4.1 (Document formal/2011-08-07). Object Management Group, Inc., Internet (2011),
  22. 22.
    Rensink, A.: Explicit State Model Checking for Graph Grammars. In: Degano, P., De Nicola, R., Meseguer, J. (eds.) Concurrency, Graphs and Models. LNCS, vol. 5065, pp. 114–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sen, S., Moha, N., Baudry, B., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Meta-model Pruning. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 32–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Soeken, M., Wille, R., Drechsler, R.: Encoding OCL Data Types for SAT-Based Verification of UML/OCL Models. In: Gogolla, M., Wolff, B. (eds.) TAP 2011. LNCS, vol. 6706, pp. 152–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Paternostro, M., Merks, E.: EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Longman, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Troya, J., Vallecillo, A.: A Rewriting Logic Semantics for ATL. Journal of Object Technology 10, 5:1–5:29 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Warmer, J.B., Kleppe, A.G.: The Object Constraint Language: Getting Your Models Ready for MDA, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabian Büttner
    • 1
  • Marina Egea
    • 2
  • Jordi Cabot
    • 1
  • Martin Gogolla
    • 3
  1. 1.AtlanMod Research GroupINRIA / Ecole des Mines de NantesFrance
  2. 2.Atos Research & Innovation Dept.MadridSpain
  3. 3.Database Systems GroupUniversity of BremenDenmark

Personalised recommendations