A UML/OCL framework for the analysis of graph transformation rules

Software and Systems Modeling

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 335-357

  Cabot, Jordi ^a,d   Clarisó, Robert ^a   Guerra, Esther ^b   de Lara, Juan ^c  

^a UNIVERSITAT OBERTA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

^d Estudis d'Informàtica Multimèdia i Telecomunicacions ^*  (Spain)

Author keywords

Domain Specific Visual Languages; Graph transformation; Meta modelling; OCL; Verification and validation

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS RESULTS; DOMAIN-SPECIFIC VISUAL LANGUAGE; GRAPH TRANSFORMATION; GRAPH TRANSFORMATION RULES; INTERMEDIATE REPRESENTATIONS; META MODEL; META-MODELLING; MODEL DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT; OPERATIONAL SEMANTICS; RULE ANALYSIS; SEAMLESS INTEGRATION; VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION;

LINGUISTICS; QUERY LANGUAGES; SEMANTICS; STANDARDIZATION;

GRAPH THEORY;

EID: 77953538861     PISSN: 16191366     EISSN: 16191374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10270-009-0129-0     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. AGG graph transformation analysis tool. http://tfs.cs.tu-berlin.de/agg/.
2. Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, K., Georg, G., Ray, I.: UML2Alloy: A challenging model transformation. In: Proceedings of MODELS'07, LNCS 4735, pp. 436 -450. Springer, Heildelberg (2007).
3. Andoni, A., Daniliuc, D., Khurshid, S., Marinov, D.: Evaluating the "Small Scope Hypothesis". Technical Report MIT-LCS-TR-921, MIT CSAIL (2003).
4. Baldan, P., Corradini, A., König, B.: A static analysis technique for graph transformation systems. In: Proceedings of CONCUR'01, LNCS 2154, pp. 381-395. Springer, Heildelberg (2001).
5. Baresi, L., Spoletini, P.: On the use of Alloy to analyze graph transformation systems. In: Proceedings of ICGT'06, LNCS 4178, pp. 306-320. Springer, Heildelberg (2006).
6. Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G. D.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 168(1-2), pp. 70-118. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005).
7. Berry D. M.: Formal methods: the very idea. Some thoughts about why they work when they work. Sci. Comput. Program. 42(1), 11-27 (2002).
8. Borgida A., Mylopoulos J., Reiter R.: On the frame problem in procedure specifications. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 21(10), 785-798 (1995).
9. Brottier, E., Fleurey, F., Steel, J., Baudry, B., Le Traon, Y.: Metamodel-based test generation for model transformations: an algorithm and a tool. In: Proceedings of ISSRE'06, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 85-94 (2006).
10. Brucker, A. D., Wolff, B.: The HOL-OCL book. Technical Report 525, ETH Zurich (2006).
11. Brucker A. D., Wolff B.: Semantics, calculi, and analysis for object-oriented specifications. Acta Inform. 56(4), 255-284 (2009).
12. Büttner, F., Gogolla, M.: Realizing graph transformations by pre- and postconditions and command sequences. In: Proceedings of ICGT'06, LNCS 4178, pp. 398-413. Springer, Heildelberg (2006).
13. Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: UMLtoCSP: a tool for the formal verification of UML/OCL models using constraint programming. In: Proceedings of ASE'07, pp. 547-548 (2007).
14. Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: Verification of UML/OCL Class Diagrams Using Constraint Programming. MoDeVVa 2008, ICST Workshop, pp. 73-80 (2008).
15. Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: Analysing graph transformation rules through OCL. In: Proceedings of ICMT, LNCS 5063, pp. 229-244. Springer, Heidelberg (2008a).
16. Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: An invariant-based method for the analysis of declarative model-to-model transformations. In: Proceedings of MODELS 2008, LNCS 5301, pp. 37-52. Springer, Heidelberg (2008b).
17. Clavel, M., Egea, M.: A rewriting-based validation tool for UML+OCL static class diagrams. In: Proceedings of AMAST'06, LNCS 4019, pp. 368-373. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).
18. 3: A tool for multi-formalism modelling and meta-modelling. In: Proceedings of FASE'02, LNCS 2306, pp. 174-188 (2002).
19. de Lara J., Bardohl R., Ehrig H., Ehrig K., Prange U., Taentzer G.: Attributed graph transformation with node type inheritance. Theor. Comput. Sci. 376(3), 139-163 (2007).
20. de Lara, J., Vangheluwe, H.: Defining visual notations and their manipulation through meta-modelling and graph transformation. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 15(3-4): 309-330. Elsevier (2004).
21. Dresden OCL Toolkit. http://dresden-ocl.sourceforge.net/ (visited October 2008).
22. Ebert, J., Riediger, V., Winter, A.: Graph technology in reverse engineering. The TGraph Approach. In: Proceedings of 10th Workshop Software Reengineering. GI Lecture Notes in Informatics, pp. 67-81 (2008).
23. Ehrig H., Ehrig K., Prange U., Taentzer G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).
24. Ehrig, H., Heckel, R., Korff, M., Löwe, M., Ribeiro, L., Wagner, A., Corradini, A.: Algebraic Approaches to Graph Transformation-Part II: Single Pushout Approach and Comparison with Double Pushout Approach. In [52], pp. 247-312 (1999).
25. Ermel, C., Hölscher, K., Kuske, S., Ziemann, P.: Animated simulation of integrated UML behavioral models based on graph transformation. In: Proceedings of IEEE VL/HCC 2005, pp. 125-133 (2005).
26. Fujaba tool suite home page: http://wwwcs.uni-paderborn.de/cs/fujaba/.
27. Gogolla, M., Bohling, J., Richters, M.: Validating UML and OCL models in USE by automatic snapshot generation. SoSyM 4(4): 386-398. Springer (2005).
28. Heckel, R., Küster, J.-M., Taentzer, G.: Confluence of typed attributed graph transformation systems. In: Proceedings of ICGT'02, LNCS 2505, pp. 161-176. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).
29. Jackson D.: Alloy: a lightweight object modelling notation. ACM TOSEM 11(2), 256-290 (2002).
30. Jouault, F., Allilairem, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I., Valduriez, P.: ATL: a QVT-like transformation language. OOPSLA Companion, pp. 719-720, ACM (2006).
31. Kalnins, A., Barzdins, J., Celms, E.: Model Transformation Language MOLA. In: Proceedings of MDAFA'04, LNCS 3599, pp. 62-76. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).
32. Katz, S.: A survey of verification and static analysis for aspects. Technical Report AOSD-Europe Milestone M8. 1, AOSD-Europe-Technion-1, Technion Israel (2005).
33. Kniesel, G., Bardey, U.: An analysis of the Correctness and Completeness of Aspect Weaving. WCRE'06, pp. 324-333, IEEE Computer Society (2006).
34. Kniesel, G.: Detection and Resolution of Weaving Interactions. In: Proceedings of TAOSD, LNCS 5490, pp. 135-186. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).
35. Lambers, L., Ehrig, H., Taentzer, G.: Sufficient criteria for applicability and non-applicability of rule sequences. In: Proceedings of GT-VMT'08, Electronic Communications of the EASST, vol. 10 (2008).
36. Larman, C.: Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 3rd Edition (2004).
37. Markovic S., Baar T.: Refactoring OCL annotated UML class diagrams. SoSyM 7(1), 25-47 (2008) Springer.
38. Mellor S. J., Scott K., Uhl A., Weise D.: MDA Distilled. Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series, Redwood (2004).
39. Mehner, K., Monga, M., Taentzer, G.: Interaction Analysis in Aspect-Oriented Models. RE'06, pp. 66-75, IEEE Computer Society (2006).
40. Mens, T., Tourwé, T.: A Survey of Software Refactoring. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30(2), 126-139 IEEE (2004).
41. Mens, T., Kniesel, G., Runge, O.: Transformation dependency analysis- a comparison of two approaches. LMO'06 12: 167-182. Hermes Science Publishing (2006).
42. Mens T., Taentzer G., Runge O.: Analysing refactoring dependencies using graph transformation. SoSyM 6(3), 269-285 (2007) Springer.
43. MOF 2. 0 standard specification at: http://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/2.0/.
44. OCL 2. 0 standard specification at: http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/ocl.htm.
45. Pérez Velasco P. P., de Lara J.: Using Matrix Graph Grammars for the Analysis of Behavioural Specifications: Sequential and Parallel Independence. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 206, 133-152 (2008).
46. Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: Reasoning on UML Class Diagrams with OCL constraints. ER 2006, LNCS 4215, pp. 497-512. Springer (2006).
47. Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: Decidable Reasoning in UML Schemas with Constraints. CAISE 2008, pp.: 281-295. Springer (2008a).
48. Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: Validation of UML Conceptual Schemas with Operations. CAISE Forum 2008, pp. 101-104. CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2008b).
49. QVT standard specification at: http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/05-11-01.pdf.
50. Rensink, A.: Explicit State Model Checking for Graph Grammars. Concurrency, Graphs and Models, LNCS 5065, pp. 114-132. Springer (2008).
51. Rivera, J. E., Guerra, E., de Lara, J., Vallecillo, A.: Analyzing rule-based behavioral semantics of visual modeling languages with maude. In: Proceedigs of SLE'08, LNCS 5452, pp. 54-73. Springer (2008).
52. Rozenberg G. (eds): Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformations, Volume 1: Foundations. World Scientific, Singapore (1997.
53. Sendall, S., Strohmeier, A.: Using OCL and UML to specify system behavior. In Object Modeling with the OCL 2002, LNCS 2263, pp. 250-280. Springer (2002).
54. Schürr, A.: Specification of graph translators with triple graph grammars. In WG'94, LNCS 903, pp. 151-163. Springer (1994).
55. Taentzer, G., Rensink, A.: Ensuring structural constraints in graph-based models with type inheritance. In: Proceedings of FASE'05, LNCS 3442, pp. 64-79. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).
56. e Constraint Programming System. http://www.eclipse-clp.org.
57. Varró D.: Automated formal verification of visual modeling languages by model checking. SoSyM 3(2), 85-113 (2004) Springer.
58. Völter M., Stahl T.: Model-Driven Software Development. Wiley, New York (2006).
59. XML Metadata Interchange (XMI), v2. 1. 1 standard specification at: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2007-12-01.