Model Driven Architecture - Foundations and Applications: 5th European Conference, ECMDA-FA 2009, Enschede, The Netherlands, June 23-26, 2009. Proceedings

Richard F. Paige; Alan Hartman; Arend Rensink

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

Model Driven Architecture - Foundations and Applications: 5th European Conference, ECMDA-FA 2009, Enschede, The Netherlands, June 23-26, 2009. Proceedings

Richard F. Paige (Editor), Alan Hartman (Editor), Arend Rensink (Editor)

Computer Science

Research output: Book/Report › Book

Abstract

In this paper we compare three model transformation languages:
1) Concrete syntax-based graph transformation (CGT) which
is our emerging model transformation language, 2) Attributed Graph
Grammar (AGG) representing traditional graph transformation, and 3)
Atlas Transformation Language (ATL) representing model transformation.
Our case study is a fairly complicated refactoring of UML activity
models. The case study shows that CGT rules are more concise and requires
considerably less effort from the modeler, than with AGG and
ATL. With AGG and ATL, the transformation modeler needs access to
and knowledge of the metamodel and the representation in the abstract
syntax. In CGT rules on the other hand, the transformation modeler
can concentrate on the familiar concrete syntax of the source and target
languages.

Original language	English
Publisher	Springer
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02674-4
Publication status	Published - 2009

Publication series

Name	Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Publisher	Springer
Volume	5562

Access to Document

10.1007/978-3-642-02674-4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02674-4

Cite this

@book{c31fc18ea3084542aebc0a8fe96216aa,

title = "Model Driven Architecture - Foundations and Applications: 5th European Conference, ECMDA-FA 2009, Enschede, The Netherlands, June 23-26, 2009. Proceedings",

abstract = "In this paper we compare three model transformation languages:1) Concrete syntax-based graph transformation (CGT) whichis our emerging model transformation language, 2) Attributed GraphGrammar (AGG) representing traditional graph transformation, and 3)Atlas Transformation Language (ATL) representing model transformation.Our case study is a fairly complicated refactoring of UML activitymodels. The case study shows that CGT rules are more concise and requiresconsiderably less effort from the modeler, than with AGG andATL. With AGG and ATL, the transformation modeler needs access toand knowledge of the metamodel and the representation in the abstractsyntax. In CGT rules on the other hand, the transformation modelercan concentrate on the familiar concrete syntax of the source and targetlanguages.",

editor = "Paige, {Richard F.} and Alan Hartman and Arend Rensink",

year = "2009",

doi = "10.1007/978-3-642-02674-4",

language = "English",

series = "Lecture Notes in Computer Science",

publisher = "Springer",

address = "Germany",

}

TY - BOOK

T1 - Model Driven Architecture - Foundations and Applications

T2 - 5th European Conference, ECMDA-FA 2009, Enschede, The Netherlands, June 23-26, 2009. Proceedings

A2 - Paige, Richard F.

A2 - Hartman, Alan

A2 - Rensink, Arend

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - In this paper we compare three model transformation languages:1) Concrete syntax-based graph transformation (CGT) whichis our emerging model transformation language, 2) Attributed GraphGrammar (AGG) representing traditional graph transformation, and 3)Atlas Transformation Language (ATL) representing model transformation.Our case study is a fairly complicated refactoring of UML activitymodels. The case study shows that CGT rules are more concise and requiresconsiderably less effort from the modeler, than with AGG andATL. With AGG and ATL, the transformation modeler needs access toand knowledge of the metamodel and the representation in the abstractsyntax. In CGT rules on the other hand, the transformation modelercan concentrate on the familiar concrete syntax of the source and targetlanguages.

AB - In this paper we compare three model transformation languages:1) Concrete syntax-based graph transformation (CGT) whichis our emerging model transformation language, 2) Attributed GraphGrammar (AGG) representing traditional graph transformation, and 3)Atlas Transformation Language (ATL) representing model transformation.Our case study is a fairly complicated refactoring of UML activitymodels. The case study shows that CGT rules are more concise and requiresconsiderably less effort from the modeler, than with AGG andATL. With AGG and ATL, the transformation modeler needs access toand knowledge of the metamodel and the representation in the abstractsyntax. In CGT rules on the other hand, the transformation modelercan concentrate on the familiar concrete syntax of the source and targetlanguages.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=71049163015&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-642-02674-4

DO - 10.1007/978-3-642-02674-4

M3 - Book

T3 - Lecture Notes in Computer Science

BT - Model Driven Architecture - Foundations and Applications

PB - Springer

ER -

Model Driven Architecture - Foundations and Applications: 5th European Conference, ECMDA-FA 2009, Enschede, The Netherlands, June 23-26, 2009. Proceedings

Abstract

Publication series

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this