Graph and model transformation tools for model migration : empirical results from the transformation tool contest

L.M. Rose, M. Herrmannsdoerfer, S. Mazanek, P.M.E. Van Gorp, S. Buchwald, T. Horn, E. Kalnina, A. Koch, K. Lano, B. Schätz, M. Wimmer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We describe the results of the Transformation Tool Contest 2010 workshop, in which nine graph and model transformation tools were compared for specifying model migration. The model migration problem—migration of UML activity diagrams from version 1.4 to version 2.2—is non-trivial and practically relevant. The solutions have been compared with respect to several criteria: correctness, conciseness, understandability, appropriateness, maturity and support for extensions to the core migration task. We describe in detail the comparison method, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the solutions with a special focus on the differences between graph and model transformation for model migration. The comparison results demonstrate.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)323-359
Number of pages36
JournalSoftware and Systems Modeling
Volume13
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Graph Transformation
Model Transformation
Migration
Comparison Method
Comparison Result
Model
Correctness
Diagram
Demonstrate

Cite this

Rose, L.M. ; Herrmannsdoerfer, M. ; Mazanek, S. ; Van Gorp, P.M.E. ; Buchwald, S. ; Horn, T. ; Kalnina, E. ; Koch, A. ; Lano, K. ; Schätz, B. ; Wimmer, M. / Graph and model transformation tools for model migration : empirical results from the transformation tool contest. In: Software and Systems Modeling. 2014 ; Vol. 13, No. 1. pp. 323-359.
@article{ab3521b87f604023817281ee6ff47a39,
title = "Graph and model transformation tools for model migration : empirical results from the transformation tool contest",
abstract = "We describe the results of the Transformation Tool Contest 2010 workshop, in which nine graph and model transformation tools were compared for specifying model migration. The model migration problem—migration of UML activity diagrams from version 1.4 to version 2.2—is non-trivial and practically relevant. The solutions have been compared with respect to several criteria: correctness, conciseness, understandability, appropriateness, maturity and support for extensions to the core migration task. We describe in detail the comparison method, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the solutions with a special focus on the differences between graph and model transformation for model migration. The comparison results demonstrate.",
author = "L.M. Rose and M. Herrmannsdoerfer and S. Mazanek and {Van Gorp}, P.M.E. and S. Buchwald and T. Horn and E. Kalnina and A. Koch and K. Lano and B. Sch{\"a}tz and M. Wimmer",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1007/s10270-012-0245-0",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "323--359",
journal = "Software and Systems Modeling",
issn = "1619-1366",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "1",

}

Rose, LM, Herrmannsdoerfer, M, Mazanek, S, Van Gorp, PME, Buchwald, S, Horn, T, Kalnina, E, Koch, A, Lano, K, Schätz, B & Wimmer, M 2014, 'Graph and model transformation tools for model migration : empirical results from the transformation tool contest', Software and Systems Modeling, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 323-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-012-0245-0

Graph and model transformation tools for model migration : empirical results from the transformation tool contest. / Rose, L.M.; Herrmannsdoerfer, M.; Mazanek, S.; Van Gorp, P.M.E.; Buchwald, S.; Horn, T.; Kalnina, E.; Koch, A.; Lano, K.; Schätz, B.; Wimmer, M.

In: Software and Systems Modeling, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2014, p. 323-359.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Graph and model transformation tools for model migration : empirical results from the transformation tool contest

AU - Rose, L.M.

AU - Herrmannsdoerfer, M.

AU - Mazanek, S.

AU - Van Gorp, P.M.E.

AU - Buchwald, S.

AU - Horn, T.

AU - Kalnina, E.

AU - Koch, A.

AU - Lano, K.

AU - Schätz, B.

AU - Wimmer, M.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - We describe the results of the Transformation Tool Contest 2010 workshop, in which nine graph and model transformation tools were compared for specifying model migration. The model migration problem—migration of UML activity diagrams from version 1.4 to version 2.2—is non-trivial and practically relevant. The solutions have been compared with respect to several criteria: correctness, conciseness, understandability, appropriateness, maturity and support for extensions to the core migration task. We describe in detail the comparison method, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the solutions with a special focus on the differences between graph and model transformation for model migration. The comparison results demonstrate.

AB - We describe the results of the Transformation Tool Contest 2010 workshop, in which nine graph and model transformation tools were compared for specifying model migration. The model migration problem—migration of UML activity diagrams from version 1.4 to version 2.2—is non-trivial and practically relevant. The solutions have been compared with respect to several criteria: correctness, conciseness, understandability, appropriateness, maturity and support for extensions to the core migration task. We describe in detail the comparison method, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the solutions with a special focus on the differences between graph and model transformation for model migration. The comparison results demonstrate.

U2 - 10.1007/s10270-012-0245-0

DO - 10.1007/s10270-012-0245-0

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 323

EP - 359

JO - Software and Systems Modeling

JF - Software and Systems Modeling

SN - 1619-1366

IS - 1

ER -