Skip to main content
Log in

Module superimposition: a composition technique for rule-based model transformation languages

  • Special Section Paper
  • Published:
Software & Systems Modeling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As the application of model transformation becomes increasingly commonplace, the focus is shifting from model transformation languages to the model transformations themselves. The properties of model transformations, such as scalability, maintainability and reusability, have become important. Composition of model transformations allows for the creation of smaller, maintainable and reusable transformation definitions that together perform a larger transformation. This paper focuses on composition for two rule-based model transformation languages: the ATLAS Transformation Language (ATL) and the QVT Relations language. We propose a composition technique called module superimposition that allows for extending and overriding rules in transformation modules. We provide executable semantics as well as a concise and scalable implementation of module superimposition based on ATL.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ATLAS group, LINA and INRIA, Nantes, France.: Specification of the ATL Virtual Machine. http://www.eclipse.org/m2m/atl/doc/ATL_VMSpecification%5Bv00.01%5D.pdf. Version 0.1 (2005)

  2. Boronat A., Carsí J.A., Ramos I.: Algebraic specification of a model transformation engine. In: Baresi, L., Heckel, R. (eds) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE’06), Vienna, Austria, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3922, pp. 262–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Budinsky F., Steinberg D., Merks E., Ellersick R., Grose T.J.: Eclipse Modeling Framework. The Eclipse Series. Addison Wesley, Reading (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cuadrado, J.S., Molina, J.G.: Approaches for model transformation reuse: factorization and composition. In: Vallecillo et al. [17], pp. 168–182

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming models with ATL. In: Model Transformations in Practice Workshop at MoDELS 2005, Montego Bay, Jamaica (2005)

  7. Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: On the architectural alignment of atl and qvt. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2006), Dijon, France (2006)

  8. Kleppe A., Warmer J., Bast W.: MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Addison Wesley, Reading (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kleppe, A.G.: First european workshop on composition of model transformations—CMT 2006. Technical Report TR-CTIT-06-34, Enschede (2006)

  10. Kniesel, G., Koch, H.: Static Composition of Refactorings. Science of Computer Programming, vol. 52(1–3), pp. 9–51 (Special issue on Program Transformation) (2004)

  11. Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.: The epsilon transformation language. In: Vallecillo et al. [17], pp. 46–60

  12. Kurtev, I., van den Berg, K., Jouault, F.: Evaluation of rule-based modularization in model transformation languages illustrated with ATL. In: SAC ’06: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied computing, pp. 1202–1209. ACM Press, New York (2006)

  13. Mens T., Gorp P.V.: A taxonomy of model transformation. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 152, 125–142 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mens T., Taentzer G., Runge O.: Detecting structural refactoring conflicts using critical pair analysis. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 127(3), 113–128 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Object Management Group, Inc.: Request for Proposal: MOF 2.0 Query/Views/Transformations RFP (2004). Ad/2002-04-10

  16. Object Management Group, Inc.: Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation Specification (2008). Version 1.0, formal/08-04-03

  17. Vallecillo, A., Gray, J., Pierantonio, A. (eds.): First International Conference on Model Transformation (ICMT 2008), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5063. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

  18. Wagelaar, D.: Composition techniques for rule-based model transformation languages. In: Vallecillo et al. [17]

  19. Wagelaar D., VanDer Straeten R.: Platform ontologies for the model-driven architecture. Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 16(4), 362–373 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis Wagelaar.

Additional information

Communicated by Jeff Gray, Alfonso Pierantonio, and Antonio Vallecillo.

This work is part of the VariBru project, which is funded by the Institute for the encouragement of Scientific Research and Innovation of Brussels (ISRIB). This work is also funded by the Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme, Belgian State, Belgian Science Policy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wagelaar, D., Van Der Straeten, R. & Deridder, D. Module superimposition: a composition technique for rule-based model transformation languages. Softw Syst Model 9, 285–309 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-009-0134-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-009-0134-3

Keywords

Navigation