Skip to main content

A Comparison of Model Migration Tools

  • Conference paper
Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS 2010)

Abstract

Modelling languages and thus their metamodels are subject to change. When a metamodel evolves, existing models may no longer conform to the evolved metamodel. To avoid rebuilding them from scratch, existing models must be migrated to conform to the evolved metamodel. Manually migrating existing models is tedious and error-prone. To alleviate this, several tools have been proposed to build a migration strategy that automates the migration of existing models. Little is known about the advantages and disadvantages of the tools in different situations. In this paper, we thus compare a representative sample of migration tools – AML, COPE, Ecore2Ecore and Epsilon Flock – using common migration examples. The criteria used in the comparison aim to support users in selecting the most appropriate tool for their situation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cicchetti, A., Di Ruscio, D., Eramo, R., Pierantonio, A.: Automating co-evolution in MDE. In: Proc. EDOC, pp. 222–231. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst. J. 45(3), 621–645 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Eclipse. UML2 Model Development Tools project [online] (2009), http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/uml2 (Accessed September 7, 2009)

  4. Favre, J.: Meta-model and model co-evolution within the 3d software space. In: Proc. ELISA Workshop, pp. 98–109 (September 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Garcés, K., Jouault, F., Cointe, P., Bézivin, J.: A Domain Specific Language for Expressing Model Matching. In: Proc. IDM, Nancy, France (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Gronback, R.C.: Eclipse Modeling Project: A Domain-Specific Language (DSL) Toolkit. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Gruschko, B., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F.: Towards synchronizing models with evolving metamodels. In: Workshop on Model-Driven Software Evolution (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Benz, S., Juergens, E.: Automatability of coupled evolution of metamodels and models in practice. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 645–659. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Ratiu, D., Wachsmuth, G.: Language evolution in practice. In: van den Brand, M., Gašević, D., Gray, J. (eds.) Software Language Engineering. LNCS, vol. 5969, pp. 3–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Hussey, K., Paternostro, M.: Advanced features of EMF. In: Tutorial at EclipseCon 2006, California, USA (2006), http://www.eclipsecon.org/2006/Sub.do?id=171 (Accessed September 07, 2009)

  15. Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming models with ATL. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 128–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Kolovos, D.S.: An Extensible Platform for Specification of Integrated Languages for Model Management. PhD thesis, University of York, United Kingdom (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mens, T., Van Gorp, P.: A taxonomy of model transformation. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 152, 125–142 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Narayanan, A., Levendovszky, T., Balasubramanian, D., Karsai, G.: Automatic domain model migration to manage metamodel evolution. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 706–711. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. OMG. Query/View/Transformation 1.0 Specification [online] (2008), http://www.omg.org/spec/QVT/1.0/ (Accessed April 26, 2010)

  20. Rose, L.M., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C.: An analysis of approaches to model migration. In: Proc. Joint MoDSE-MCCM Workshop (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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 (accepted 2010) (to appear)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Sprinkle, J.: Metamodel Driven Model Migration. PhD thesis, Vanderbilt University, TN, USA (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sprinkle, J., Agrawal, A., Levendovszky, T., Shi, F., Karsai, G.: Domain model evolution in visual languages using graph transformations. In: Proc. Workshop on Domain-Specific Visual Languages (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Taentzer, G., Ehrig, K., Guerra, E., De Lara, J., Levendovszky, T., Prange, U., Varro, D.: Model transformations by graph transformations: A comparative study. In: Model Transformations in Practice Workshop at MoDELS 2005, Montego, 5p. (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wachsmuth, G.: Metamodel adaptation and model co-adaptation. In: Ernst, E. (ed.) ECOOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4609, pp. 600–624. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rose, L.M. et al. (2010). A Comparison of Model Migration Tools. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. MODELS 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6394. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16145-2_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16145-2_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-16144-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-16145-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics