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
SN - 1619-1366
VL - 13
SP - 323
EP - 359
JO - Software and Systems Modeling
JF - Software and Systems Modeling
IS - 1
ER -