Model Transformation Co-evolution: A Semi-automatic Approach

  • Jokin García
  • Oscar Diaz
  • Maider Azanza
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7745)


Model transformations are precious and effortful outcomes of Model-Driven Engineering. As any other artifact, transformations are also subject to evolution forces. Not only are they affected by changes to transformation requirements, but also by the changes to the associated metamodels. Manual co-evolution of transformations after these metamodel changes is cumbersome and error-prone. In this setting, this paper introduces a semi-automatic process for the co-evolution of transformations after metamodel evolution. The process is divided in two main stages: at the detection stage, the changes to the metamodel are detected and classified, while the required actions for each type of change are performed at the co-evolution stage. The contributions of this paper include the automatic co-evolution of breaking and resolvable changes and the assistance to the transformation developer to aid in the co-evolution of breaking and unresolvable changes. The presented process is implemented for ATL in the CO-URE prototype.


Model Transformation Transformation Rule Conjunctive Normal Form Complex Change Simple Change 
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. 1.
    Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Küster, J.M.: Analysis of Model Transformations via Alloy. In: Baudry, B., Faivre, A., Ghosh, S., Pretschner, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th MoDeVVa Workshop Model-Driven Engineering, Verification and Validation, pp. 47–56 (2007),
  2. 2.
    Bézivin, J.: In Search of a Basic Principle for Model-Driven Engineering. UPGRADE, The European Journal for the Informatics Professional, Special Issue on UML and Model Engineering 5(2), 21–24 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cabot, J., Conesa, J.: Automatic Integrity Constraint Evolution due to Model Subtract Operations. In: Wang, S., Tanaka, K., Zhou, S., Ling, T.-W., Guan, J., Yang, D.-Q., Grandi, F., Mangina, E.E., Song, I.-Y., Mayr, H.C. (eds.) ER Workshops 2004. LNCS, vol. 3289, pp. 350–362. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cicchetti, A., Di Ruscio, D., Eramo, R., Pierantonio, A.: Automating Co-evolution in Model-Driven Engineering. In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Di Ruscio, D., Iovino, L., Pierantonio, A.: What is Needed for Managing Co-evolution in MDE? In: Proc. of the 2nd International Workshop on Model Comparison in Practice, IWMCP 2011, pp. 30–38. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    France, R., Rumpe, B.: Model-Driven Development of Complex Software: A Research Roadmap. In: Workshop on the Future of Software Engineering (FOSE 2007), at the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2007), Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, pp. 37–54 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garcés, K., Jouault, F., Cointe, P., Bézivin, J.: A Domain Specific Language for Expressing Model Matching. In: Proc. of the 5ère Journée sur l’Ingénierie Dirigée par les Modèles (IDM 2009) (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garcés, K., Jouault, F., Cointe, P., Bézivin, J.: Managing Model Adaptation by Precise Detection of Metamodel Changes. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 34–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herrmannsdoefer, M., Vermolen, S., Wachsmuth, G.: An Extensive Catalog of Operators for the Coupled Evolution of Metamodels and Models. In: Software Language Engineering, Third International Conference, Software Language Engineering 2010, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, October 12-13, 2010, Revised Selected Papers (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herrmannsdoerfer, M.: COPE – A Workbench for the Coupled Evolution of Metamodels and Models. In: Malloy, B., Staab, S., van den Brand, M. (eds.) SLE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6563, pp. 286–295. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I.: ATL: A Model Transformation Tool. Science of Computer Programming (SCP) 72(1-2), 31–39 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Küster, J.M., Abd-El-Razik, M.: Validation of Model Transformations – First Experiences Using a White Box Approach. In: Kühne, T. (ed.) MoDELS 2006 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 4364, pp. 193–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kurtev, I.: Adaptability of Model Transformations, ch. 5. PhD thesis, University of Twente, Enschede (May 2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levendovszky, T., Balasubramanian, D., Narayanan, A., Karsai, G.: A Novel Approach to Semi-automated Evolution of DSML Model Transformation. In: van den Brand, M., Gašević, D., Gray, J. (eds.) SLE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5969, pp. 23–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mohagheghi, P., Dehlen, V.: Where Is the Proof? - A Review of Experiences from Applying MDE in Industry. In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5095, pp. 432–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rose, L.M., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C.: Model Migration with Epsilon Flock. In: Tratt, L., Gogolla, M. (eds.) ICMT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6142, pp. 184–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schätz, B., Deridder, D., Pierantonio, A., Sprinkle, J., Tamzalit, D.: On the Use of Operators for the Co-Evolution of Metamodels and Transformations. In: Proc. of the International Workshop on Models and Evolution (ME 2011) at MoDELS 2011, pp. 54–63 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steel, J., Jézéquel, J.: On Model Typing. Software and System Modeling 6(4), 401–413 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Toulmé, A.: Presentation of EMF Compare Utility. In: Eclipse Modeling Symposium 2006, pp. 1–8 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Amstel, M.F., van den Brand, M.G.J.: Model Transformation Analysis: Staying Ahead of the Maintenance Nightmare. In: Cabot, J., Visser, E. (eds.) ICMT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6707, pp. 108–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vermolen, S.D., Wachsmuth, G., Visser, E.: Reconstructing Complex Metamodel Evolution. In: Sloane, A., Aßmann, U. (eds.) SLE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6940, pp. 201–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wachsmuth, G.: Metamodel Adaptation and Model Co-adaptation. In: Ernst, E. (ed.) ECOOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4609, pp. 600–624. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang, J., Kim, S., Carrington, D.: Verifying Metamodel Coverage of Model Transformations. In: Proc. of the Australian Software Engineering Conference, pp. 270–282. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jokin García
    • 1
  • Oscar Diaz
    • 1
  • Maider Azanza
    • 1
  1. 1.Onekin Research GroupUniversity of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)San SebastianSpain

Personalised recommendations