Advertisement

Evaluating the Performance of Model Transformation Styles in Maude

  • Roberto Bruni
  • Alberto Lluch Lafuente
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7253)

Abstract

Rule-based programming has been shown to be very successful in many application areas. Two prominent examples are the specification of model transformations in model driven development approaches and the definition of structured operational semantics of formal languages. General rewriting frameworks such as Maude are flexible enough to allow the programmer to adopt and mix various rule styles. The choice between styles can be biased by the programmer’s background. For instance, experts in visual formalisms might prefer graph-rewriting styles, while experts in semantics might prefer structurally inductive rules. This paper evaluates the performance of different rule styles on a significant benchmark taken from the literature on model transformation. Depending on the actual transformation being carried out, our results show that different rule styles can offer drastically different performances. We point out the situations from which each rule style benefits to offer a valuable set of hints for choosing one style over the other.

Keywords

Model Transformation Transformation Rule Operational Semantic Graph Transformation Rule Application 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Meseguer, J.: Conditional rewriting logic as a unified model of concurrency. Theoretical Computer Science 96, 73–155 (1992)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rozenberg, G. (ed.): Handbook of Graph Grammars. World Scientific (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruni, R., Lluch Lafuente, A., Montanari, U.: On structured model-driven transformations. International Journal of Software and Informatics (IJSI) 2, 185–206 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boronat, A., Bruni, R., Lluch Lafuente, A., Montanari, U., Paolillo, G.: Exploiting the Hierarchical Structure of Rule-Based Specifications for Decision Planning. In: Hatcliff, J., Zucca, E. (eds.) FMOODS/FORTE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6117, pp. 2–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: Semantic Models for Distributed Object Reflection. In: Magnusson, B. (ed.) ECOOP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2374, pp. 1–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meseguer, J.: A logical theory of concurrent objects. In: OOPSLA/ECOOP 1990, pp. 101–115 (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boronat, A., Meseguer, J.: An Algebraic Semantics for MOF. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Inverardi, P. (eds.) FASE 2008. LNCS, vol. 4961, pp. 377–391. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: All About Maude. LNCS, vol. 4350. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Plotkin, G.D.: A structural approach to operational semantics. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 60-61, 17–39 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Verdejo, A., Martí-Oliet, N.: Executable structural operational semantics in Maude. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 67, 226–293 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bruni, R., Meseguer, J.: Semantic foundations for generalized rewrite theories. Theoretical Computer Science 360, 386–414 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bruni, R., Lluch Lafuente, A., Montanari, U., Tuosto, E.: Style based architectural reconfigurations. Bulletin of the EATCS 94, 161–180 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boronat, A., Knapp, A., Meseguer, J., Wirsing, M.: What Is a Multi-Modeling Language? In: Corradini, A., Montanari, U. (eds.) WADT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5486, pp. 71–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Biermann, E., Ehrig, K., Köhler, C., Kuhns, G., Taentzer, G., Weiss, E.: EMF model refactoring based on graph transformation concepts. In: 3rd Workshop on Software Evolution through Transformations, vol. 3. ECEASST (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Braga, C., Verdejo, A.: Modular structural operational semantics with strategies. ENTCS 175, 3–17 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Şerbănuţă, T.F., Roşu, G., Meseguer, J.: A rewriting logic approach to operational semantics. Information and Computation 207, 305–340 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kessentini, M., Sahraoui, H., Boukadoum, M., Omar, O.: Search-based model transformation by example. Software and Systems Modeling 11(2), 209–226 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    3rd Rewrite engines competition (REC III), WRLA 2010 (2010), http://www.lcc.uma.es/~duran/rewriting_competition/
  27. 27.
    Graph Transformation Contest, http://fots.ua.ac.be/events/grabats2008/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Bruni
    • 1
  • Alberto Lluch Lafuente
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PisaItaly
  2. 2.IMT Institute for Advanced Studies LuccaItaly

Personalised recommendations