The Principles of Complete and Correct Transformation of the Synchronized Models

The article describes the method of complete and correct model transformation within a model synchronization scenario. It is based on a strategy of producing a complete and correct set of transformation rules, ensuring the completeness and correctness criteria by analyzing a syntactic and semantic structure of meta-models via graph grammar techniques. Currently used approaches to creating the model transformation rules are considered. Their disadvantages which influence the result of the model transformation process are demonstrated. Correlations between the correctness of the meta-models and transformation rules as well as the completeness and correctness of the transformation process are found. The proposed method allows both creating a correct set of the model transformation rules automatically and determining a sequence of this creation. The evidences of this fundamental result are provided.

References

[1] Den Haan Johan.15 reasons why you should start using Model Driven Development. Available at: http://www.theenterprisearchitect.eu/archive/2009/11/25/15-reasons-why-you-should-start-using-model-driven-development (accessed: 20.01.2015).

[2] Devyatkov V.V., Oshkalo D.V. Development of model synchronization processes and principles of their verification. Jelektr. nauchno-tehn. Izd. "Inzhenernyy zhurnal: nauka i innovacii" [El. Sc.-Techn. Publ. "Eng. J.: Science and Innovation"], 2013, iss. 11. URL: http://engjournal.ru/catalog/it/hidden/1052.html

[3] Kindler E., Robert W. Triple Graph Grammars: concepts, extensions, implementations, and application scenarios. Tech. Rep., no. tr-ri-07-284. Software Engineering Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Paderborn, 2007.

[4] Schurr A. Specification of graph translators with triple graph grammars. Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science. 20th International Workshop. Herrsching, Germany, 1994, vol. 903, pp. 151-163.

[5] Biehl M. Literature study on model transformations. Tech. Rep., Royal Institute of Technology, 2010.

[6] Stevens P. Bidirectional model transformations in QVT: semantic issues and open questions.In International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS 2007). Springer, 2007, vol. 4735, pp. 1-15.

[7] Stevens P. A landscape of bidirectional model transformations. In Generative and Transformational Techniques in Software Engineering II, International Summer School (GTTSE 2007). Springer, 2008, vol. 5235, pp. 408-424.

[8] Antkiewicz M., Czarnecki K. Design space of heterogeneous synchronization. In Generative and Transformational Techniques in Software Engineering (GTTSE 2007). Springer, 2008, vol. 5235, pp. 3-46.

[9] Ehrig H., Ehrig K., de Lara J. Termination criteria for model transformation. International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2005). Springer, 2005, vol. 3442, pp. 49-63.

[10] Habel A., Muller J., Plump D. Double push-out approach with injective matching. Springer, 2000, vol. 1764, pp. 103-117.

[11] Unified Modeling Language. URL: http://www.uml.org (accessed: 20.01.2015).

[12] Eclipse Modeling Framework. URL: http://eclipse.org/modeling/emf (accessed: 20.01.2015).

[13] Meta-Object Facility. URL: http://www.omg.org/mof (accessed: 20.01.2015).

[14] Galkina V.A. Diskretnaya matematika: kombinatornaya optimizatsiya na grafakh [Discrete mathematics: combinatorial optimization on graphs]. Moscow, Gelios ARV Publ., 2003. 232 p.