Comparison of Graph-based Model Transformation Rules.

Abstract

With model transformations arising to primary development artifacts in Model-Driven Engineering, dedicated tools supporting transformation developers in the development and maintenance of model transformations are strongly required. In this paper, we address the versioning of model transformations, which essentially relies on a basic service for comparing different versions of model transformations, e.g., a local workspace version and the latest version of a repository. Focusing on rule-based model transformations based on graph transformation concepts, we propose to compare such transformation rules using a maximum common subgraph (MCS) algorithm as the underlying matching engine. Although the MCS problem is known as a non-polynomial optimization problem, our research hypothesis is that using an MCS algorithm as a basis for comparing graph-based transformation rules is feasible for real-world model transformations and increases the quality of comparison results compared to standard model comparison algorithms. Experimental results obtained on a benchmark set for model transformation confirm this hypothesis.

Contrasting dedicated model transformation languages versus general purpose languages: a historical perspective on ATL versus Java based on complexity and size

“…We also show cases where we would advise against writing transformations in Java because of its disadvantages. The argumentation of this part is based on the results presented in this publication as well as our experiences, both from this study as well as previous works [8][9][10][11][12]. Finally, we want to have a short discussion beyond the results of our study.…”

“…Within our research group as well as in conversations with other researchers, the presumption that transformations can just as well be written in a GPL such as Java has been discussed frequently. In fact, in our own research, we have implemented various model transformations using a GPL; examples of this include the meta-tooling facilities of established research tools like SiLift [8] and SERGe [9,10], or the implementation of model refactorings and model mutations in experimental setups of more recent empirical evaluations [11,12]. The presumption that model transformations can just as well be written in a GPL has been confirmed by a community discussion on the future of model transformation languages [7], and, at least partially, by an empirical study conducted by Hebig et al [13].…”

Graph-based version control for asynchronous BIM collaboration

“…Unfortunately, the resulting similarity rate is presented as a mere scalar value, which does not provide access to the altered objects within the model. Looking on graph similarity from a generic perspective, the concept of Maximum Common Subgraph (MCS) by Schultheiß et al [44] supports the identification of repetitive graph structures that appear in multiple graph structures. Further research tackling aspects of MCS was conducted by Wang and Maple [45], Bunke et al [46], Conte et al [47].…”

“…As, however, option 1 is more compelling from a conceptual point of view, we will investigate it in future publications. Hence, the developed method covering For the comparison between two versions of the graph, the concept of Maximum Common Subgraphs (MCS) assists in identifying all parts of the graph that remained unchanged [44,45,46,47]. The MCS algorithm traverses through both graphs and applies a depth-first approach.…”