Realizing Graph Transformations by Pre- and Postconditions and Command Sequences

  • Fabian Büttner
  • Martin Gogolla
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4178)


This paper studies two realizations of graph transformations which are based on a UML class diagram. The first realization achieves a representation in terms of descriptive pre- and postconditions. The second one yields an operationally executable command sequence in terms of basic commands for object and link creation, attribute modification, and object and link destruction. Our aim for realizing graph transformations in terms of target languages offering different views, i.e., descriptive or operational, is to take advantage of both views and to utilize the benefits which both views provide.


Target Language Sequence Diagram Graph Transformation Attribute Assignment Graph Transformation Rule 
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. [Baa06]
    Baar, T.: OCL and Graph-Transformations: A Symbiotic Alliance to Alleviate the Frame Problem. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 20–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [BGN+04]
    Burmester, S., Giese, H., Niere, J., Tichy, M., Wadsack, J.P., Wagner, R., Wendehals, L., Zündorf, A.: Tool integration at the meta-model level: the Fujaba approach. STTT 6(3), 203–218 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [BW02]
    Brucker, A.D., Wolff, B.: HOL-OCL: Experiences, consequences and design choices. In: Jézéquel, J.-M., Hussmann, H., Cook, S. (eds.) UML 2002. LNCS, vol. 2460, pp. 196–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  4. [dLT04]
    de Lara, J., Taentzer, G.: Automated Model Transformation and Its Validation Using AToM 3 and AGG. In: Blackwell, A.F., Marriott, K., Shimojima, A. (eds.) Diagrams 2004. LNCS, vol. 2980, pp. 182–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [EHHS00]
    Engels, G., Hausmann, J.H., Heckel, R., Sauer, S.: Dynamic meta modeling: A graphical approach to the operational semantics of behavioral diagrams in UML. In: Evans, A., Kent, S., Selic, B. (eds.) UML 2000. LNCS, vol. 1939, pp. 323–337. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  6. [GBR05]
    Gogolla, M., Bohling, J., Richters, M.: Validating UML and OCL Models in USE by Automatic Snapshot Generation. Journal on Software and System Modeling 4(4), 386–398 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [KASS03]
    Karsai, G., Agrawal, A., Shi, F., Sprinkle, J.: On the Use of Graph Transformation in the Formal Specification of Model Interpreters. Journal Universal Computer Science 9(11), 1296–1321 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. [KR06]
    Kastenberg, H., Rensink, A.: Model Checking Dynamic States in GROOVE. In: Valmari, A. (ed.) SPIN 2006. LNCS, vol. 3925, pp. 299–305. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [LSE05]
    Lohmann, M., Sauer, S., Engels, G.: Executable Visual Contracts. In: IEEE Symp. Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC 2005), pp. 63–70 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. [OMG04]
    OMG. (ed.): OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 2.0. OMG (2004)Google Scholar
  11. [RBJ05]
    Rumbaugh, J., Booch, G., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2005)Google Scholar
  12. [Sch01]
    Schürr, A.: Adding Graph Transformation Concepts to UML’s Constraint Language OCL. In: Proc. ETAPS Workshop UNIGRA, ENTCS, vol. 44(4), pp. 403–410 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. [SWZ96]
    Schürr, A., Winter, A.J., Zündorf, A.: Developing Tools with the PROGRES Environment. In: Nagl, M. (ed.) IPSEN 1996. LNCS, vol. 1170, pp. 356–369. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  14. [VFV06]
    Varró, G., Friedl, K., Varró, D.: Implementing a Graph Transformation Engine in Relational Databases. Journal on Software and System Modeling (2006)Google Scholar
  15. [WK03]
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modeling with UML, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  16. [ZHG04]
    Ziemann, P., Hölscher, K., Gogolla, M.: From UML Models to Graph Transformation Systems. In: Minas, M. (ed.) Proc. Workshop Visual Languages and Formal Methods (VLFM 2004). ENTCS, vol. 127(4), pp. 17–33 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabian Büttner
    • 1
  • Martin Gogolla
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science Department, Database Systems GroupUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations