Enhancing classic transformation languages to support multi-level modeling

Abstract

As practical tools for disciplined multi-level modeling have begun to mature, the problem of supporting simple and efficient transformations to-and-from multi-level models to facilitate interoperability has assumed growing importance. The challenge is not only to support efficient transformations between multi-level models, but also between multi-level and two-level model content represented in traditional modeling infrastructures such as the UML and programming languages. Multi-level model content can already be accessed by traditional transformation languages such as ATL and QVT, but in a way that is blind to the ontological classification information they contain. In this paper, we present an approach for making rule-based transformation languages "multi-level aware" so that the semantics of ontological classification as well as linguistic classification can be exploited when writing transformations.

Comparing and classifying model transformation reuse approaches across metamodels

“…Multilevel transformations were originally proposed in [44], and are supported within the METADEPTH tool for the Epsilon languages. Melanee [3] is a multilevel modeling tool based on Eclipse/EMF, which supports defining multilevel transformations using ATL. MultEcore [50] is a recent multilevel modeling tool with a dedicated language to express model transformations.…”

“…Concepts, typing requirements models and constraint-based model types are dependent on the MT language since they need to manipulate or analyse the MT code to be reused. Multilevel modeling is an in-between case because the mechanism acts on the metamodeling framework, but the MT language needs to be multilevel aware for better usability, as shown in [3,44].…”

Multilevel coupled model transformations for precise and reusable definition of model behaviour

“…The general structure of multilevel transformation rules is shown in Figure 14. This could be considered as a method to relax the strictness of two-level model transformations through multilevel model transformations (see, e.g., [51,50]). To achieve flexibility, the rules could be defined over a type graph somewhere at a higher level in the hierarchy and applied to running instances at the bottom of the hierarchy (see Figure 14).…”

“…To summarise, while existing approaches which employ reusable model transformations for the definition of behavioural models focus on traditional two-level modelling hierarchies and their affiliated two-level model transformations (see [46,47] for a survey), multilevel model transformations [50,51] are relatively new and are not yet proven suitable for reuse and definition of model's behaviour. Our approach to multilevel model transformation build on top of these original approaches to combine reusability with flexibility in the number of modelling levels.…”

“…Hence, MLM hierarchies could be used for DSMM, i.e., for the flexible organization of metamodelling languages, models and their running instances [12]. Unfortunately, multilevel model transformations [50,51,52] are relatively new and have not yet been proven suitable for both reuse and definition of behavioural models. Writing a multilevel rule which refers to types on a higher level of abstraction will provide for higher degree of reusability and genericness, but the "jump" over the intermediate levels would lead to insufficient precision in the rules, which in turn might lead to too generic rules which would apply in undesired situations.…”