Comparison of Three Model Transformation Languages

Grønmo, Roy; Møller-Pedersen, Birger; Olsen, Gøran K.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02674-4_2

Cited by 29 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In model-driven engineering, model-to-model transformations define mappings between models [22]. There are a number of model transformation languages such as ATL (Atlas Transformation Language) [23] and AGG (Attributed Graph Grammar) [24].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

AspectQuery: A Method for Identification of Crosscutting Concerns in the Requirement Phase

2013

IEICE Trans. Inf. & Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYIdentification of early aspects is the critical problem in aspect-oriented requirement engineering. But the representation of crosscutting concerns is various, which makes the identification difficult. To address the problem, this paper proposes the AspectQuery method based on goal model. We analyze four kinds of goal decomposition models, then summarize the main factors about identification of crosscutting concerns and conclude the identification rules based on a goal model. A goal is crosscutting concern when it satisfies one of the following conditions: i) the goal is contributed to realize one soft-goal; ii) parent goal of the goal is candidate crosscutting concern; iii) the goal has at least two parent goals. AspectQuery includes four steps: building the goal model, transforming the goal model, identifying the crosscutting concerns by identification rules, and composing the crosscutting concerns with the goals affected by them. We illustrate the AspectQuery method through a case study (a ticket booking management system). The results show the effectiveness of AspectQuery in identifying crosscutting concerns in the requirement phase.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

AspectQuery: A Method for Identification of Crosscutting Concerns in the Requirement Phase

2013

IEICE Trans. Inf. & Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Taentzer et al [24] compare the graph transformation languages AGG, TGG, VIATRA, and VMTS using the well-known object to relational transformation example. Gronmo et al [9] compare the transformation languages CGT, AGG, and ATL using a complex refactoring example. These comparisons are used here to derive criteria for the comparison of model migration tools.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Model Migration Tools

Rose

Herrmannsdoerfer

Williams

et al. 2010

Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Modelling languages and thus their metamodels are subject to change. When a metamodel evolves, existing models may no longer conform to the evolved metamodel. To avoid rebuilding them from scratch, existing models must be migrated to conform to the evolved metamodel. Manually migrating existing models is tedious and errorprone. To alleviate this, several tools have been proposed to build a migration strategy that automates the migration of existing models. Little is known about the advantages and disadvantages of the tools in different situations. In this paper, we thus compare a representative sample of migration tools -AML, COPE, Ecore2Ecore and Epsilon Flock -using common migration examples. The criteria used in the comparison aim to support users in selecting the most appropriate tool for their situation.

show abstract

“…We have developed a proof-of-concept implementation of the c2a mapping for activity model-based rules available for download at [19], and further described in [8], [9], [20].…”

Section: B Ao4bpel and Graph Transformationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Graph Transformation Make Aspect Languages for BPEL Redundant?

Grønmo

2010

2010 14th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The aspect language AO4BPEL has been introduced as a way to modularize cross-cutting concerns in Web service compositions that are specified in BPEL. AO4BPEL can be difficult to understand and to write for non-XML experts. This paper explores if algebraic graph transformation rules can be used to specify BPEL aspects at the modeling level, and make new aspect languages like AO4BPEL redundant. Three AO4BPEL examples, taken from the literature, are used to test the suitability of graph transformation as a means to simulate BPEL aspects.

show abstract

Comparison of Three Model Transformation Languages

Cited by 29 publications

References 8 publications

AspectQuery: A Method for Identification of Crosscutting Concerns in the Requirement Phase

AspectQuery: A Method for Identification of Crosscutting Concerns in the Requirement Phase

A Comparison of Model Migration Tools

Can Graph Transformation Make Aspect Languages for BPEL Redundant?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About