Change-driven model transformations

Bergmann, Gábor; Ráth, István; Varró, Gergely; Varró, Dániel

doi:10.1007/s10270-011-0197-9

Cited by 56 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bergmann et al [15] have used graph patterns and graph transformations to define a change-driven model transformation approach. This approach is similar to the synchronisation mechanisms in VITRUVIUS, which are also triggered by change operations to views or parts of the SUM.…”

Section: Triple Graph Grammarsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible views for view-based model-driven development

Bürger¹

2013

Proceedings of the 18th International Doctoral Symposium on Components and Architecture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern software development faces growing size and complexity of the systems that are being developed. To cope with this complexity, several languages and modelling formalisms are used during the development of a system in order to describe it from various view points and at multiple levels of abstraction. These languages and modeling formalisms are specific to the domain of the system under development, to the paradigms that are followed, and to the developer tools being used. For example, in a component-based process, the software architecture may be defined using a component metamodel, while class diagrams are used for the object-oriented design of the system; performance and reliability models express the extra-functional properties; program code in a general-purpose programming language defines the execution semantics, and is used for the implementation of the system. Although all these artefacts follow different concepts and formalisms, they express the same system from various view points and can thus be understood as views on the system under development. The entirety of these views can be identified as a complete definition of the system. Although the usage of multiple formalisms offers the advantage that different developers can describe the system from different view points, and in languages and models that are specially designed for this purpose, it introduces the problem of fragmentation of information across heterogeneous artefacts in different formats, concepts, and languages. With increasing complexity of the systems, this makes navigation through the system description difficult for developers and other roles in the development process. Furthermore, since the concepts and formalisms are managed independently, they can share semantic overlaps, so that a piece of information about the system under i Abstract development can be expressed in several ways and contexts. For example, while a component model may be used to express the prescriptive software architecture of a system, the implementation in a general-purpose programming language also determines an implicit architecture of the system, which leads to redundancies in the system descriptions. The independent evolution of these artefacts can lead to inconsistencies, which cannot be identified automatically if the semantic correspondances between the artefacts are not modelled explicitly.View-based software development processes offer two fundamental principles of adressing this problem: While synthetic approaches integrate the information of heterogeneous models to form a complete system description, projective approaches introduce a common formalism in which all view points of the system can be represented, and generate the views from this central model. While the pure synthetic approach suffers from a quadratic increase of interdependencies between the view types, which become very numerous with a growing number of formalisms that have to be supported, the projective approach faces the problem of providing a common formalism that is ab...

show abstract

Section: Triple Graph Grammarsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible views for view-based model-driven development

Bürger¹

2013

Proceedings of the 18th International Doctoral Symposium on Components and Architecture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the sequence of fired transitions of a Petri net. The M trc describes the changes of M dyn , therefore it is represented as a change model in terms of [10].…”

Section: A Metamodels Of Dynamic Modeling Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Back-annotation of Simulation Traces with Change-Driven Model Transformations

Hegedüs

Bergmann

Ráth

et al. 2010

2010 8th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Model-driven analysis aims at detecting design flaws early in high-level design models by automatically deriving mathematical models. These analysis models are subsequently investigated by formal verification and validation (V&V) tools, which may retrieve traces violating a certain requirement. Back-annotation aims at mapping back the results of V&V tools to the design model in order to highlight the real source of the fault, to ease making necessary amendments.Here we propose a technique for the back-annotation of simulation traces based on change-driven model transformations. Simulation traces of analysis models will be persisted as a change model with high-level change commands representing macro steps of a trace. This trace is back-annotated to the design model using change-driven transformation rules, which bridge the conceptual differences between macro steps in the analysis and design traces. Our concepts will be demonstrated on the back-annotation problem for analyzing BPEL processes using a Petri net simulator.

show abstract

“…The methodology also supports the automatic detection of requirement changes and violation of security properties and argumentation analysis [9] to check security properties are preserved by evolution and to identify new security properties that should be taken into account. Change driven transformations based on evolution rules [3] are leveraged to check argument validity, to automatically detect violations or ful lment of security properties, and to issue alerts prompting human intervention, a manual analysis or argumentation process, or trigger automated reactions in certain cases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Tool for Managing Evolving Security Requirements

Bergmann

Massacci

Paci

et al. 2012

Progress in Pattern Recognition, Image Analysis, Computer Vision, and Applications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Requirements evolution management is a daunting process. Requirements change continuously making the traceability of requirements hard and the monitoring of requirements unreliable. Moreover, changing requirements might have an impact on the security properties a system design should satisfy: certain security properties that are satis ed before evolution might no longer be valid or new security properties need to be satis ed. This paper presents SeCMER, a tool for requirements evolution management developed in the context of the SecureChange project. The tool supports automatic detection of requirement changes and violation of security properties using change-driven transformations. The tool also supports argumentation analysis to check security properties are preserved by evolution and to identify new security properties that should be taken into account.

show abstract

Change-driven model transformations

Cited by 56 publications

References 42 publications

Flexible views for view-based model-driven development

Flexible views for view-based model-driven development

Back-annotation of Simulation Traces with Change-Driven Model Transformations

A Tool for Managing Evolving Security Requirements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About