Incremental Bidirectional Transformations: Comparing Declarative and Procedural Approaches Using the Families to Persons Benchmark

Westfechtel, Bernhard; Buchmann, Thomas

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22559-9_5

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Medini QVT has become a de facto standard for QVT-R developers, as it has been the most widely used QVT-R tool for several years. The tool adopts a variant semantics (based on persistent traces), but also has limitations for incremental updates and a lack of flexibility in its semantics [38].…”

Section: Issues In Qvt-r Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We took tutorial examples from the Medini QVT site projects.ikv.de/qvt and from the QVT-D project repository of examples originating mainly from Mod-elMorf: git.eclipse.org/c/mmt/org.eclipse.qvtd.git. We also took cases from Github repositories and from published papers [12,28,[36][37][38]. Table 3 lists cases with their size in LOC, together with the kind of element mapping which is performed by the transformation, and any design patterns [20,25] or specification approach adopted.…”

Section: Rationale For the Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implementing QVT-R via semantic interpretation in UML-RSDS

Lano

Kolahdouz-Rahimi

2020

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The QVT-Relations (QVT-R) model transformation language is an OMG standard notation for model transformation specification. It is highly declarative and supports (in principle) bidirectional (bx) transformation specification. However, there are many unclear or unsatisfactory aspects to its semantics, which is not precisely defined in the standard. UML-RSDS is an executable subset of UML and OCL. It has a precise mathematical semantics and criteria for ensuring correctness of applications (including model transformations) by construction. There is extensive tool support for verification and for production of 3GL code in multiple languages (Java, C#, C++, C, Swift and Python). In this paper, we define a translation from QVT-R into UML-RSDS, which provides a logically oriented semantics for QVT-R, aligned with the RelToCore mapping semantics in the QVT standard. The translation includes variation points to enable specialised semantics to be selected in particular transformation cases. The translation provides a basis for verification and static analysis of QVT-R specifications and also enables the production of efficient code implementations of QVT-R specifications. We evaluate the approach by applying it to solve benchmark examples of bx.

show abstract

Section: Issues In Qvt-r Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rationale For the Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing QVT-R via semantic interpretation in UML-RSDS

Lano

Kolahdouz-Rahimi

2020

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An example of transformation inversion is the Familiesto-persons case [1,23] (Figure 3). In T L the direction from families to male persons can be defined as: xor is the exclusive or operator.…”

Section: Using T L For Bidirectional Transformationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After successful application of R with a selected/created fx for ex , the test R(ex , fx ) will return true in the remainder of the transformation execution. However, check-before-enforce can be problematic in batch mode execution, leading to unintended many-one matchings [23]. Instead, we adopt the semantics used by Medini QVT [14,17], which omits check-before-enforce.…”

Section: Synthesis Of Qvt-rmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For bidirectional transformations (bx), QVT-R is probably the most widely-used language, and it provides mechanisms which appear to support bx definitions. However, QVT-R is not satisfactory for the declarative expression of complex source-target relationships [22,23]. Although the language has a declarative orientation, it also permits the use of procedural techniques (such as iteration and recursive application of rules), and such approaches lead in turn to semantic problems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

TL

Lano

Fang

Kolahdouz-Rahimi

2020

Proceedings of the 23rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion Proceedi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model transformation verification has been hindered by the complex language mechanisms and semantics of mainstream transformation languages. In this paper we describe an abstract formalism, T L, for the definition of bidirectional and unidirectional transformations in a purely declarative manner. In contrast to model transformation languages such as ATL or QVT-R, there is no implicit or explicit sequencing of rules in T L specifications. Reasoning about T L specifications is therefore facilitated. We show that semanticspreserving translations can be defined from T L to subsets of the mainstream transformation languages. CCS CONCEPTS • Software and its engineering → Formal software verification.

show abstract