Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 77, Issue 4, pp 5083–5106 | Cite as

Automatic transformation tools of UML design models from virtual prototypes of multi-jointed robots



Most of robotic companies develop a control programming of multi-jointed robots, which spend too much time to manually adjust the moving functions of the robots. To solve this problem, we adapt the virtual prototyping (VP) to develop the control program of the robotic behaviors. For software engineers, in order for them to easily program this robot, we also apply metamodel mechanism to convert UML models with virtual prototyping model. We propose the automatic model transformation from the virtual prototyping model to UML models, which will then develop coding based on UML models. To prove our mechanism’s efficiency, we implement Robot to UML Translator (RUT) as our transformation rules with ATLAS transformational language. Lastly, we show experimental validation about the consistency of our proposed technique with an example of multi-joined robot prototype models.


Model transformation UML Virtual prototyping Software controller Multi-jointed robot Virtual Robert (VirRobot) 



This work was supported by the Human Resource Training Program for Regional Innovation and Creativity through the Ministry of Education and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2015H1C1A1035548)


  1. 1.
    Raibert MH (1986) Legged Robots. Commun ACM 29(6):499–514CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim WY, Son HS, Kim RYC, Carlson CR (2009) MDD based CASE Tool for Modeling Heterogeneous Multi Jointed Robots. In: Proceedings of the 2009 World Congress on Computer Science and Information Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, 31 March-2 April, LA, California USA, pp. 775–779Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim DW, Son HS, Kim WY, Kim RYC (2008) Application of M&S (Modeling & Simulation) for the Autonomous Reconnaissance Ground Robot. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Communication/Electron in Agency for Defense Development, Agency for Defense Development, 23 October, Seoul, Korea, pp. 168–171Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    OMG (2006) Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification Ver. 2.0. Accessed 2 April 2013
  5. 5.
    OMG (2014) Model Driven Architecture (MDA) Guide Rev:2.0 Accessed 6 May 2015
  6. 6.
    Son HS, Kim WY, Kim RYC (2008) Semi-Automatic Software Development based on MDD for Heterogeneous Multi-Joint Robots. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Control and Automation, IEEE Computer Society, 13-15 December, Sanya, China, pp. 93–98Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grønmo R, Oldevik J (2005) An Empirical Study of the UML Model Transformation Tool (UMT). In: Proc. First International Conference on Interoperability of Enterprise Software and Applications (INTEROP-ESA)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vojtisek D, Je’ze’quel J-M (2004) MTL and Umlaut NG: Engine and Framework for Model Transformation. ERCIM News. Accessed 1 June 2015
  9. 9.
    OMG (2015) Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation Specification Version 1.2. Accessed 2 May 2016
  10. 10.
    Be’zivin J, Dupe´ G, Jouault F, Pitette G, Rougui JE (2003) First Experiments with the ATL Model Transformation Language: Transforming XSLT into XQuery. In: Proc. Workshop on Generative Techniques in the Context of Model Driven Architecture, pp. 1–18Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jouault F, Kurtev I (2005) Transforming Models with ATL. In: Proceedings of the 2005 international conference on Satellite Events at the MoDELS, Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, 2-7 October, Montego Bay, Jamaica, pp. 128–138Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tseng MM, Jiao J, CJ S (1988) Virtual prototyping for customized product development. Integr Manuf Syst 9(6):334–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Microsoft (2007) Microsoft Robotics Studio (MSRS) Introduction. Accessed 10 December 2012
  14. 14.
    Gassmann B, Scholl K-U, Berns K (2001) Locomotion of LAURON III in rough terrain. In: Proc. IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics 2, pp. 959–964Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kerscher T, Albiez J, Berns K (2002) Joint control of the six-legged robot AirBug driven by fluidic muscles. In: Proceedings of third international workshop on robot motion and control, IEEE, 11 November, Bukowy Dworek, Poland, pp. 27–32Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grieco JC, Prieto M, Armada M, Gonzalez de Santos P (1998) A six-legged climbing robot for high payloads. In: Proc. IEEE international conference on control applications 1, pp. 446–450Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wettergreen D, Pangels H, Bares J (1995) Behavior-based gait execution for the Dante II walking robot. In: Proc. intelligent robots and systems 3, pp. 274–279Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim JS, Son HS, Kim WY, Kim RYC (2008) A study on education software for controlling of multi-joint robot. J Korean Assoc Inf Educ 12(4):469–476Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jouault F, Kurtev I (2005) Transforming models with ATL. In: proc. satellite events at the MoDELS, LNCS 3844, pp. 128–138Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    OMG (2014) Object Constraint Language Specification Version 2.4. Accessed 2 May 2016
  21. 21.
    OMG (2014) XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) Specification Version 2.4.2, Accessed 2 May 2016
  22. 22.
    Kim WY, Son HS, Kim RYC (2008) Design automation for heterogeneous SUGVs with UML profile mechanism. J KIISE:Soft Appli 35(12):705–715Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim WY, Kim RYC (2007) A study on modeling heterogeneous embedded S/W components based on model driven architecture with extended xUML. KIPS Trans: Part D 14-D(1):83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smith R (2006) Open dynamics engine V0.5 user guide. Accessed 1 June 2015
  25. 25.
    OMG (2009) OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) Superstructure Version 2.2. Accessed 2 April 2013
  26. 26.
    ATL’s full codes of robot transformation,

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SE Lab, Department of Computer and Information CommunicationHongik UniversitySejongRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations