Role of Model Transformation in Method Engineering

  • Motoshi Saeki
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2348)


This paper discusses two applications of model transformation to method engineering; one is method assembly of diagram based methods and formal methods and the other one is providing formal semantics with meta models by means of the transformation of the meta model descriptions into the formal descriptions. We use Class Diagram to define the meta models, and the models following the meta model can be represented with instance graphs. Thus our model transformation is based on graph grammars. To show and clarify the benefits of model transformation in method engineering, we illustrate the transformation rules and how to transform models. We use two examples; one is a method assembly of Class Diagram and Z and the other one is defining formal semantics of the meta model of Class Diagram.


  1. 1.
    XML: eXtensible Markup Language., 1996.
  2. 2.
    Meta Object Facility (MOF) Speicication., 2000.
  3. 3.
    T. Aoki and T. Katayama. Unification and Consistency Verification of Object-Oriented Analysis Models. In Proc. of 5th Asia-Pacific Softwrae Engineering Conference (APSEC’98), pages 296–303, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Berry and M. Weber. A Pragmatic, Rigorous Integration of Structural and Behavioral Modeling Notations. In Proc. of 1st International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods, pages 38–48, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Bourdeau and B. Cheng. A Formal Semantics for Object Model Diagrams. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, 21(10):799–821, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Brinkkemper. Formalisation of Information Systems Modelling. Thesis Publisher, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Brinkkemper. Method Engineering: Engineering of Information Systems Development Methods and Tools. Information and Software Technology, 37(11), 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Brinkkemper, M. Saeki, and F. Harmsen. Meta-Modelling Based Assembly Techniques for Situational Method Engineering. Information Systems, 24(3):209–228, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    I. Jacobson, G. Booch, and J. Rumbaugh. The Unified Software Development Process. Addison Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Jarke, J. Mylopoulos, J. Schmidt, and Y. Vassiliou. DAIDA: An Environment for Evolving Information Systems. ACM Trans. on Information Systems, 10(1):1–50, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. B. Jones. Systematic Software Development Using VDM. Prentice Hall, 1986.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Kronlöf, editor. Method Integration — Concepts and Case Studies. Wiley, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Pons, R. Giandini, and G. Baum. Dependency Relations Between Models in the Unified Process. In Proc. of 10th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (IWSSD-10), pages 149–158, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. Potter, J. Sinclair, and D. Till. An Introduction to Formal Specification and Z. Prentice Hall, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Ralyte and C. Rolland. An Assembly Process Model for Method Engineering. In Lecture Notes in Comupter Science (CAiSE’01), volume 1626, pages 267–283, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Rumbaugh, M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, F. Eddy, and W. Lonrensen. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice-Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Saeki and K. Wenyin. Specifying Software Specification & Design Methods. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (CAiSE’94), pages 353–366. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Schurr. Developing Graphical (Software Engineering) Tools with PROGRES. In Proc. of 19th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’97), pages 618–619, 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    X. Song and L. J. Osterweil. Experience with an Approach to Comparing Software Design Methodologies. IEEE Trans. on Soft. Eng., 20(5):364–384, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. Taentzer, O. Runge, B. Melamed, M. Rudorf, T. Schultzke, and S. Gruner. AGG: The Attributed Graph Grammar System., 2001.
  22. 22.
    E. Wang, H. Richer, and B. Cheng. Formalizing and Integrating the Dynamic Model within OMT*. In Proc. of 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 45–55, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Motoshi Saeki
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceTokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations