Skip to main content

Comparison of Three Model Transformation Languages

  • Conference paper
Model Driven Architecture - Foundations and Applications (ECMDA-FA 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 5562))

Abstract

In this paper we compare three model transformation languages: 1) Concrete syntax-based graph transformation (CGT) which is our emerging model transformation language, 2) Attributed Graph Grammar (AGG) representing traditional graph transformation, and 3) Atlas Transformation Language (ATL) representing model transformation. Our case study is a fairly complicated refactoring of UML activity models. The case study shows that CGT rules are more concise and requires considerably less effort from the modeler, than with AGG and ATL. With AGG and ATL, the transformation modeler needs access to and knowledge of the metamodel and the representation in the abstract syntax. In CGT rules on the other hand, the transformation modeler can concentrate on the familiar concrete syntax of the source and target languages.

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. Biermann, E., Ermel, C., Hurrelmann, J., Ehrig, K.: Flexible visualization of automatic simulation based on structured graph transformation. In: IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, VL/HCC (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Eclipse Consortium. Eclipse Graphical Modeling Framework (GMF) (2007), http://www.eclipse.org/gmf

  3. Grønmo, R., Møller-Pedersen, B.: Aspect Diagrams for UML Activity Models. In: Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance. LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Habel, A., Müller, J., Plump, D.: Double-pushout graph transformation revisited. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 11(5), 637–688 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Eder, J., Gruber, W., Pichler, H.: Transforming Workflow Graphs. In: Proceedings of the First Int. Conf. on Interoperability of Enterprise Software and Applications (INTEROP-ESA) (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming Models with ATL. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 128–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Koehler, J., Hauser, R., Sendall, S., Wahler, M.: Declarative techniques for model-driven business process integration. IBM Systems Journal 44(1) (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Oldevik, J., Neple, T., Grønmo, R., Aagedal, J.Ø., Berre, A.-J.: Toward standardised model to text transformations. In: Hartman, A., Kreische, D. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3748, pp. 239–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. OMG. OMG’s MetaObject Facility, http://www.omg.org/mof/

  10. OMG. UML 2.0 OCL Specification, OMG Adopted Specification ptc/03-10-14 (October 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  11. OMG. UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification, OMG Adopted Specification ptc/03-08-02 (August 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ouyang, C., Dumas, M., Breutel, S., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Translating Standard Process Models to BPEL. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 417–432. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Skogan, D., Grønmo, R., Solheim, I.: Web Service Composition in UML. In: IEEE Intl. Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conf. (EDOC) (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Strommer, M., Wimmer, M.: A framework for model transformation by-example: Concepts and tool support. In: Objects, Components, Models and Patterns (TOOLS). LNBIP. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  15. System and Software Engineering Lab, Vrije Unversiteit Brussel, Belgium. MDE Case Studies, http://ssel.vub.ac.be/ssel/research:mdd:casestudies

  16. Taentzer, G.: AGG: A Graph Transformation Environment for Modeling and Validation of Software. In: Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance (AGTIVE) (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Whittle, J., Jayaraman, P., Elkhodary, A., Moreira, A., Araújo, J.: MATA: A Unified Approach for Composing UML Aspect Models based on Graph Transformation. Transactions on AOSD - Special Issue on Aspects and Model-Driven Engineering (2008) (in press)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Grønmo, R., Møller-Pedersen, B., Olsen, G.K. (2009). Comparison of Three Model Transformation Languages. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds) Model Driven Architecture - Foundations and Applications. ECMDA-FA 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5562. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02674-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02674-4_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-02673-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-02674-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics