Towards the flexible reuse of model transformations: A formal approach based on graph transformation

Abstract

Esta es la versión de autor del artículo publicado en: This is an author produced version of a paper published in:Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming 83. 5-6 (2014) AbstractModel transformations are the heart and soul of Model Driven Engineering (MDE). However, in order to increase the adoption of MDE by industry, techniques for developing model transformations in the large and raising the quality and productivity in their construction, like reusability, are still needed.In previous works, we developed a reutilization approach for graph transformations based on the definition of concepts, which gather the structural requirements needed by meta-models to qualify for the transformations. Reusable transformations are typed by concepts, becoming transformation templates. Transformation templates are instantiated by binding the concept to a concrete meta-model, inducing a retyping of the transformation for the given meta-model. This paper extends the approach allowing heterogeneities between the concept and the metamodel, thus increasing the reuse opportunities of transformation templates. Heterogeneities are resolved by using algebraic adapters which induce both a retyping and an adaptation of the transformation. As an alternative, the adapters can also be employed to induce an adaptation of the meta-model, and in this work we show the conditions for equivalence of both approaches to transformation reuse.

Amalgamation of domain specific languages with behaviour

“…Similarly, type-graph morphisms currently require a very high structural similarity between the two type graphs. We are planning to explore bindings inspired by type groups [2] and ideas by de Lara and Guerra in [10] to allow for more flexibility in this area. 2.…”

GTS Families for the Flexible Composition of Graph Transformation Systems

“…In this section, we introduce some of the basic definitions concerning typed graphs and the algebraic approaches to the rewriting of typed graphs, and provide background definitions underpinning our discussion throughout this paper. The notation and most of the definitions in this section follow very closely those in, e.g., [3,8,13,18].…”

“…The need for a mechanism for relating different GTSs, or their type graphs, that is more flexible than direct morphisms-to broaden opportunities for GTS reuse-has been recognised before: In the case of models, represented as graphs, this has been resolved more or less pragmatically by supporting a specific, fixed set of adaptations to be applied prior to applying the morphism (see, e.g., [6,11,12,13]). For example, Diskin et al [12] propose using Kleisli categories for relating models.…”

“…For example, Diskin et al [12] propose using Kleisli categories for relating models. De Lara and Guerra extended their work on concepts in [13] by using adapters to allow heterogeneities between the concept and the concrete graph. Each of these works "hard wires" a specific set of flexibilities.…”

“…Even though the introduction of derived attributes and links as in [12] or [13], and the behavioural relations provided for GTS morphisms as in [8] improve the chances of defining the required morphisms, structural mismatch remains a problem. Often even where there is an intuitive match, no morphism can be established.…”