Typing Model Transformations Using Tracts

Vallecillo, Antonio; Gogolla, Martin

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30476-7_4

Cited by 11 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistency checking rules as well as UML models are represented in Prolog, and a Prolog reasoning engine is used to automatically find inconsistencies. There are some works [68,67] dealing with the so-called tracts, and contracts for specifying with OCL constraints in transformations. The spirit of tracts is the same as our constraints on source and target models, and cross constraint validation on source-target models.…”

Section: Constraint Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

PTL: A model transformation language based on logic programming

Almendros-Jiménez¹,

Iribarne²,

López-Fernández³

et al. 2016

Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we present a model transformation language based on logic programming. The language, called PTL (Prolog based Transformation Language), can be considered as a hybrid language in which ATL (Atlas Transformation Language)-style rules are combined with logic rules for defining transformations. ATL-style rules are used to define mappings from source models to target models while logic rules are used as helpers. The implementation of PTL is based on the encoding of the ATL-style rules by Prolog rules. Thus, PTL makes use of Prolog as a transformation engine. We have provided a declarative semantics to PTL and proved the semantics equivalent to the encoded program. We have studied an encoding of OCL (Object Constraint Language) with Prolog goals in order to map ATL to PTL. Thus a subset of PTL can be considered equivalent to a subset of ATL. The proposed language can be also used for model validation, that is, for checking constraints on models and transformations. We have equipped our language with debugging and tracing capabilities which help developers to detect programming errors in PTL rules. Additionally, we have developed an Eclipse plugin for editing PTL programs, as well as for debugging, tracing and validation. Finally, we have evaluated the language with several transformation examples as well as tested the performance with large models.

show abstract

Section: Constraint Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

PTL: A model transformation language based on logic programming

Almendros-Jiménez¹,

Iribarne²,

López-Fernández³

et al. 2016

Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous works [25] have approached transformation refinement from a testing perspective. Hence, given a set of (manually created) input models, developers might discover an implementation result violating some postcondition or invariant, but cannot prove refinement.…”

Section: Model Transformation Refinementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our proposal relies on OCL as a common denominator for both specification languages (e.g. PaMoMo [13], Tracts [25] and OCL [18]) and transformation languages (e.g. QVT-R [21], triple graph grammars [22] and ATL [16]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…QVT-R [21], triple graph grammars [22] and ATL [16]). For this purpose, we profit from previous works translating these languages into OCL [6,7,13,25]. Hence, transformation specifications and implementations are transformed into transformation models [4] and we use SAT/model finding [6] techniques to automatically find counterexamples that satisfy properties assumed by the specification, but are incorrectly implemented.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, transformation specifications and implementations are transformed into transformation models [4] and we use SAT/model finding [6] techniques to automatically find counterexamples that satisfy properties assumed by the specification, but are incorrectly implemented. While refinement has been previously tackled in [25], our work is novel in that it proposes an automated procedure for performing this checking, and is able to tackle heterogeneous specification and transformation languages by using OCL as the underlying language for reasoning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Checking Model Transformation Refinement

Büttner

Egea

Guerra

et al. 2013

Theory and Practice of Model Transformations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Esta es la versión de autor de la comunicación de congreso publicada en: This is an author produced version of a paper published in: Abstract. Refinement is a central notion in computer science, meaning that some artefact S can be safely replaced by a refinement R, which preserves S's properties. Having available techniques and tools to check transformation refinement would enable (a) the reasoning on whether a transformation correctly implements some requirements, (b) whether a transformation implementation can be safely replaced by another one (e.g. when migrating from QVT-R to ATL), and (c) bring techniques from stepwise refinement for the engineering of model transformations.In this paper, we propose an automated methodology and tool support to check transformation refinement. Our procedure admits heterogeneous specification (e.g. PaMoMo, Tracts, OCL) and implementation languages (e.g. ATL, QVT), relying on their translation to OCL as a common representation formalism and on the use of model finding tools.

show abstract