Skip to main content
Log in

A survey of approaches for verifying model transformations

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Software & Systems Modeling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As with other software development artifacts, model transformations are not bug-free and so must be systematically verified. Their nature, however, means that transformations require specialist verification techniques. This paper brings together current research on model transformation verification by classifying existing approaches along two dimensions. Firstly, we present a coarse-grained classification based on the technical details of the approach (e.g., testing, theorem proving, model checking). Secondly, we present a finer-grained classification which categorizes approaches according to criteria such as level of formality, transformation language, properties verified. The purpose of the survey is to bring together research in model transformation verification to act as a resource for the community. Furthermore, based on the survey, we identify a number of trends in current and past research on model transformation verification.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Arguably, a program is a type of model, and, in fact, we would agree with this view; the difference lies in the level of abstraction. Here, we make the distinction only to emphasize that there are two separate research communities—on model transformation and program transformation—but that they both face similar challenges in terms of verification.

  2. Again, program transformation is a separate research community, and it would be too complex to include all research on program transformation in this paper.

  3. Calegari et al. [21] mention that their approach is for certifying model transformations. However, we classify this approach as non-certification because there is no discussion about proof certificate generation in. Our definition of certification requires more than simply using a theorem prover (Coq in this case), since the output of a theorem prover is not necessarily independently checkable.

  4. Cabot et al. mention that constraint solvers and SAT solvers can also be used with their approach.

  5. The target-specific representation of the properties being verified should be verified by domain experts.

References

  1. Ab. Rahim, L., Whittle, J.: Verifying semantic conformance of state machine-to-java code generators. In: Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems—13th International Conference, MODELS 2010, Proceedings, Part I, vol. 6394 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 166–180, Oslo, Norway, October 2010. Springer, Berlin (2010)

  2. Ab. Rahim, L., Whittle, J.: Identifying state space reduction techniques from behavioural design patterns. In: Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Behavioural Modelling, BM-FA ’11, pp. 49–55. ACM, New York (2011)

  3. Amelunxen, C., Klar, F., Königs, A., Rötschke, T., Schürr, A.: Metamodel-based tool integration with Moflon. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’08, pp. 807–810. ACM, New York (2008)

  4. Amrani, M., Lucio, L., Selim, G., Combemale, B., Dingel, J., Vangheluwe, H., Le Traon, Y., Cordy, J.R.: A tridimensional approach for studying the formal verification of model transformations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Fifth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, pp. 921–928. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2012)

  5. Amstel, M.F., Lange, C.F., Brand, M.G.: Using metrics for assessing the quality of ASF+SDF model transformations. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, ICMT ’09, pp. 239–248. Springer, Berlin (2009)

  6. Asztalos, M., Lengyel, L., Levendovszky, T.: A formalism for describing modeling transformations for verification. In: MoDeVVa ’09: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Model-Driven Engineering, Verification and Validation, pp. 1–10. ACM, New York (2009)

  7. Baar, T., Marković, S.: A graphical approach to prove the semantic preservation of UML/OCL refactoring rules. In: Perspectives of Systems Informatics, vol. 4378 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 70–83. Springer, Berlin (2007)

  8. Balser, M., Reif, W., Schellhorn, G., Stenzel, K., Thums, A.: Formal system development with KIV. In: Maibaum, T. (ed.) Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, vol. 1783 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 363–366. Springer, Berlin (2000)

  9. Barbosa, P.E.S., Ramalho, F., de Figueiredo, J.C.A., dos S. Junior, A.D.: An extended MDA architecture for ensuring semantics-preserving transformations. In: 32nd Annual IEEE Software Engineering, Workshop, pp. 33–42, October (2008)

  10. Barbosa, P.E.S., Ramalho, F., de Figueiredo, J.C.A., dos S. Junior, A.D., Costa, A., Gomes, L.: Checking semantics equivalence of MDA transformations in concurrent systems. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 15(11), 2196–2224 (2009)

  11. Baudry, B., Dinh-trong, T., Mottu, J.-M., Simmonds, D., France, R., Ghosh, S., Fleurey, F., Le Traon, Y.: Model transformation testing challenges. In: ECMDA Workshop on Integration of Model Driven Development and Model Driven Testing (2006)

  12. Blair, G., Bencomo, N., France, R.B.: Models\(@\)run.time. Computer 42, 22–27 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Blech, J.O., Glesner, S., Leitner, J.: Formal verification of java code generation from UML models. In: 3rd International Fujaba Days 2005-MDD, in Practice, pp. 49–56 (2005)

  14. Boehm, B.: Verifying and validating software requirements and design specifications. IEEE Softw. 1(1), 75–88 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Boronat, A., Heckel, R., Meseguer, J.: Rewriting logic semantics and verification of model transformations. In: Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE), pp. 18–33 (2009)

  16. Bouhoula, A., Jouannaud, J.-P., Meseguer, J.: Specification and proof in membership equational logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 236(12), 35–132 (2000)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Brooks Jr, F.P.: The Mythical Man-Month, Anniversary edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (1995)

  18. Brottier, E., Fleurey, F., Steel, J., Baudry, B., Le Traon, Y.: Metamodel-based test generation for model transformations: an algorithm and a tool. In: 17th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE ’06), pp. 85–94. IEEE (2006)

  19. Buth, B., Buth, K., Franzle, M., Karger, B., Lakhneche, Y., Langmaack, H., Muller-Olm, M.: Provably correct compiler development and implementation. In: Compiler Construction, pp. 141–155. Springer, Berlin (1992)

  20. Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: Verification and validation of declarative model-to-model transformations through invariants. J. Syst. Softw. 83, 283–302 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Calegari, D., Luna, C., Szasz, N., Tasistro, Á.: A type-theoretic framework for certified model transformations. In: Davies, J., Silva, L., Simao, A. (eds.) Formal Methods: Foundations and Applications, vol. 6527 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 112–127. Springer, Berlin (2011)

  22. Cariou, E., Marvie, R., Seinturier, L., Duchien, L.: OCL for the specification of model transformation contracts. In: Workshop OCL and Model Driven Engineering of the Seventh International Conference on UML Modeling Languages and Applications (UML’04) (2004)

  23. Caspi, P., Curic, A., Maignan, A., Sofronis, C., Tripakis, S., Niebert, P.: From simulink to SCADE/Lustre to TTA: a layered approach for distributed embedded applications. In: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGPLAN conference on Language, compiler, and tool for embedded systems (LCTES ’03), pp. 153–162. ACM (2003)

  24. Chaki, S., Ivers, J., Lee, P., Wallnau, K., Zeillberger, N.: Model-driven construction of certified binaries. In: 10th International Conference, MODELS 2007, pp. 666–681. Springer, Berlin (2007)

  25. Cheng, B.H., Lemos, R., Giese, H., Inverardi, P., Magee, J., Andersson, J., Becker, B., Bencomo, N., Brun, Y., Cukic, B., Marzo, Serugendo G., Dustdar, S., Finkelstein, A., Gacek, C., Geihs, K., Grassi, V., Karsai, G., Kienle, H.M., Kramer, J., Litoiu, M., Malek, S., Mirandola, R., Müller, H.A., Park, S., Shaw, M., Tichy, M., Tivoli, M., Weyns, D., Whittle, J.: Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems: A Research Roadmap, pp. 1–26. Springer, Berlin (2009)

  26. Clavel, M., Egea, M.: ITP/OCL: A rewriting-based validation tool for UML+OCL static class diagrams. In: Johnson, M., Vene, V. (eds.) Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology, vol. 4019 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 368–373. Springer, Berlin (2006)

  27. Cornelissen, B., Holten, D., Zaidman, A., Moonen, L., van Wijk, J.J., van Deursen, A.: Understanding execution traces using massive sequence and circular bundle views. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension, ICPC ’07, pp. 49–58. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2007)

  28. Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst. J. 45(3), 621–645 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Darabos, A., Pataricza, A., Varró, D.: Towards testing the implementation of graph transformations. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Graph Transformations and Visual Modeling Techniques, pp. 69–80. Elsevier (2006)

  30. Denney, E., Fischer, B.: Generating customized verifiers for automatically generated code. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering (GPCE ’08), pp. 77–88. ACM (2008)

  31. Denney, E., Fischer, B., Schumann, J., Richardson, J.: Automatic certification of Kalman filters for reliable code generation. In: IEEE Aerospace Conference, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2005)

  32. Egea, M., Rusu, V.: Formal executable semantics for conformance in the MDE framework. Innov. Syst. Softw. Eng. 6(1–2), 73–81 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Ermel, C., Hermann, F., Taentzer, G.: Information preserving bidirectional model transformations. In: Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE), pp. 72–86 (2007)

  34. Fleurey, F., Baudry, B., Muller, P.-A., Le Traon, Y.: Towards dependable model transformations: qualifying input test data. In: Software and System Modeling. Springer, Berlin (2007)

  35. Fleurey, F., Steel, J., Baudry, B.: Validation in model-driven engineering: testing model transformations. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Model, Design and Validation, pp. 29–40. IEEE (2004)

  36. García, M., Möller, R.: Certification of transformation algorithms in model-driven software development. In: Software Engineering, pp. 107–118 (2007)

  37. Giner, P., Pelechano, V.: Test-driven development of model transformations. In: 12th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), pp. 748–752 (2009)

  38. Goos, G.: Compiler verification and compiler architecture. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 65(2), 1 (2002). COCV’02, Compiler Optimization Meets Compiler Verification (Satellite Event of ETAPS 2002)

  39. Harrison, R., Samaraweera, L., Dobie, M., Lewis, P.: Estimating the quality of functional programs: an empirical investigation. Inf. Softw. Technol. 37(12), 701–707 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hermann, F., Ehrig, H., Orejas, F., Czarnecki, K., Diskin, Z., Xiong, Y.: Correctness of model synchronization based on triple graph grammars. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, vol. 6981 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 668–682. Springer, Berlin (2011)

  41. Hoare, T.: The verifying compiler: a grand challenge for computing research. In: Hedin, G. (ed.) Compiler Construction, vol. 2622 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 262–272. Springer, Berlin (2003)

  42. Holten, D., van Wijk, J.J.: Visual comparison of hierarchically organized data. Comput. Graph. Forum 27(3), 759–766 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Howard W. (1980) To H.B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda-Calculus, and Formalism, chapter The Formulae-as-types Notion of Construction, pp. 479–490. Academic Press.

  44. Hutchinson, J., Rouncefield, M., Whittle, J.: Model-driven engineering practices in industry. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’11, pp. 633–642. ACM, New York (2011)

  45. Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., Rouncefield, M., Kristoffersen, S.: Empirical assessment of MDE in industry. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’11, pp. 471–480. ACM, New York (2011)

  46. Izerrouken, N., Thirioux, X., Pantel, M., Strecker, M.: Certifying an automated code generator using formal tools: preliminary experiments in the GeneAuto project. In: Electronic Proceedings of 4th European Congress in Real-Time Sofware (ERTS’08) (2008)

  47. Jackson, E., Levendovszky, T., Balasubramanian, D.: Reasoning about metamodeling with formal specifications and automatic proofs. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, vol. 6981 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 653–667. Springer, Berlin (2011)

  48. Jackson, E.K., Kang, E., Dahlweid, M., Seifert, D., Santen, T.: Components, platforms and possibilities: towards generic automation for MDA. In: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Embedded Software, EMSOFT ’10, pp. 39–48. ACM, New York (2010)

  49. Jaffar, J., Maher, M., Marriott, K., Stuckey, P.: The semantics of constraint logic programs. J. Log. Program. 37(13), 1–46 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Jayaraman, P., Whittle, J., Elkhodary, A., Gomaa, H.: Model composition in product lines and feature interaction detection using critical pair analysis. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D., Weil, F. (eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, vol. 4735 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 151–165. Springer, Berlin (2007)

  51. Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I.: ATL: a model transformation tool. Sci. Comput. Program. 72(12), 31–39 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kapová, L., Goldschmidt, T., Becker, S., Henss, J.: Evaluating maintainability with code metrics for model-to-model transformations. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Quality of Software Architectures: research into Practice–Reality and Gaps, QoSA’10, pp. 151–166. Springer, Berlin (2010)

  53. Karsai, G., Narayanan, A.: On the correctness of model transformations in the development of embedded systems. In: Kordon, F., Sokolsky, O. (eds.) Composition of Embedded Systems. Scientific and Industrial Issues, vol. 4888 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 1–18. Springer, Berlin (2007)

  54. Kolovos, D., Paige, R., Polack, F.: Model comparison: a foundation for model composition and model transformation testing. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Global Integrated Model Management (G@MMA’06), pp. 13–20. ACM (2006)

  55. Kolovos, D., Paige, R., Rose, L., Polack, F.: The Epsilon Book. University of York, York (2009)

  56. Kübler, J., Goldschmidt, T.: A pattern mining approach using QVT. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Model Driven Architecture-Foundations and Applications, ECMDA-FA ’09, pp. 50–65. Springer, Berlin (2009)

  57. Küster, J., Heckel, R., Engels, G.: Defining and validating transformations of UML models. In: IEEE Symposium on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments, pp. 145–152. IEEE (2003)

  58. Küster, J.M.: Definition and validation of model transformations. Softw. Syst. Model. 5(3), 233–259 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Küster, J.M., Abd-El-Razik, M.: Validation of model transformations first experiences using a white box approach. In: Models in Software Engineering, pp. 193–204 (2007)

  60. Lamari, M.: Towards an automated test generation for the verification of model transformations. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC ’07), pp. 998–1005. ACM (2007)

  61. Lamport, L.: Checking a multithreaded algorithm with \(^{+}\)CAL. In: Proceedings of 20th International Symposium on Distributed Computing, pp. 151–163. Springer, Berlin, Stockholm, September (2006)

  62. Lamport, L.: The PlusCal algorithm language. In: Proceedings of 6th International Colloquium on Theoretical Aspects of Computing, pp. 36–60, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, August (2009)

  63. Lano, K., Clark, D.: Model transformation specification and verification. In: The Eighth International Conference on Quality Software (QSIC ’08), pp. 45–54. ACM (2008)

  64. Lano, K., Kolahdouz-Rahimi, S.: Specification and verification of model transformations using UML-RSDS. In: Méry, D., Merz, S. (eds.) Integrated Formal Methods, vol. 6396 of Lecture Notes in Computer, pp. 199–214. Springer, Berlin (2010)

  65. Lano, K., Kolahdouz-Rahimi, S.: Model-Driven Development of Model Transformations. In: Cabot, J., Visser, E. (eds.) Theory and Practice of Model Transformations (ICMT), vol. 6707 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 47–61. Springer, Berlin (2011)

  66. Lanza, M., Marinescu, R.: Object-Oriented Metrics in Practice: Using Software Metrics to Characterize, Evaluate, and Improve the Design of Object-Oriented Systems. Springer, Germany (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Lawley, M., Steel, J.: Practical declarative model transformation with Tefkat. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) Satellite Events at the MoDELS 2005 Conference, vol. 3844 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 139–150. Springer, Berlin (2006)

  68. Lin, Y., Zhang, J., Gray, J.: A testing framework for model transformations. In: Model-Driven Software Development-Research and Practice in Software Engineering, pp. 219–236. Springer, Berlin (2005)

  69. Lúcio, L., Barroca, B., Amaral, V.: A technique for automatic validation of model transformations. In: Petriu, D., Rouquette, N., Haugen, O. (eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, vol. 6394 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 136–150. Springer, Berlin (2010)

  70. Mottu, J.-M., Baudry, B., Le Traon, Y.: Mutation analysis testing for model transformations. In: Model Driven Architecture–Foundations and Applications, Second European Conference, ECMDA-FA 2006, pp. 376–390. Springer, Berlin (2006)

  71. Mottu, J.-M., Baudry, B., Le Traon, Y.: Reusable MDA components: a testing-for-trust approach. In: Proceedings of the MoDELS/UML 2006, pp. 589–603. Springer, Berlin (2006)

  72. Mottu, J.-M., Baudry, B., Le Traon, Y.: Model transformation testing: oracle issue. In: IEEE International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation Workshop (ICSTW ’08), pp. 105–112. IEEE (2008)

  73. Namjoshi, K.S.: Certifying model checkers. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV ’01), pp. 2–13. Springer, Berlin (2001)

  74. Narayanan, A., Karsai, G.: Towards verifying model transformations. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 211, 191–200 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Necula, G.C.: Proof-carrying code. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL ’97), pp. 106–119. ACM (1997)

  76. Orejas, F., Wirsing, M.: On the specification and verification of model transformations. In: Palsberg, J. (eds) Semantics and Algebraic Specification, vol. 5700 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 140–161. Springer, Berlin (2009)

  77. Pnueli, A., Shtrichman, O., Siegel, M.: The code validation tool CVT: automatic verification of a compilation process. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 2, 192–201 (1998)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  78. Poernomo, I.: Proofs-as-model-transformations. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, ICMT ’08, pp. 214–228. Springer, Berlin (2008)

  79. Poernomo, I., Terrell, J.: Correct-by-construction model transformations from partially ordered specifications in Coq. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods and Software Engineering, ICFEM’10, pp. 56–73. Springer, Berlin (2010)

  80. Rahimi, S., Lano, K.: Integrating goal-oriented measurement for evaluation of model transformation. In: International Symposium on Computer Science and Software Engineering (CSSE), pp. 129–134. IEEE (2011)

  81. Reynoso, L., Genero, M., Piattini, M., Manso, E.: Assessing the impact of coupling on the understandability and modifiability of OCL expressions within UML/OCL combined models. In: Software Metrics, 2005. 11th IEEE International, Symposium, pp. 10–14, September (2005)

  82. RTCA: DO-178B, Software Consideration in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification. Technical report, RTCA Inc (1992)

  83. Saeki, M., Kaiya, H.: Measuring model transformation in model driven development. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Information, Systems Engineering (CAiSE’07), pp. 77–80 (2007)

  84. Schumann, J., Fischer, B., Whalen, M., Whittle, J.: Certification support for automatically generated programs. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2003)

  85. Sen, S., Baudry, B., Mottu, J.-M.: On combining multi-formalism knowledge to select models for model transformation testing. In: 1st International Conference on Software Testing, Verification, and Validation, pp. 328–337. IEEE (2008)

  86. Sen, S., Baudry, B., Mottu, J.-M.: Automatic model generation strategies for model transformation testing. In: Paige, R. (ed.) Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, vol. 5563 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 148–164. Springer, Berlin (2009)

  87. Staats, M., Heimdahl, M.: Partial translation verification for untrusted code-generators. In: International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods (ICFEM’08), pp. 226–237. Springer, Berlin (2008)

  88. Stenzel, K., Moebius, N., Reif, W.: Formal verification of QVT transformations for code generation. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, vol. 6981 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 533–547. Springer, Berlin (2011)

  89. Strecker, M.: Modeling and verifying graph transformations in proof assistants. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 203(1), 135–148 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  90. Stürmer, I., Conrad, M., Doerr, H., Pepper, P.: Systematic testing of model-based code generators. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 33(9), 622–634 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Stürmer, I., Conrad, M., Fey, I., Dörr, H.: Experiences with model and autocode reviews in model-based software development. In: Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Software Engineering for Automotive systems (SEAS ’06), pp. 45–52. ACM (2006)

  92. Tisi, M., Jouault, F., Fraternali, P., Ceri, S., Bzivin, J.: On the use of higher-order model transformations. In: Paige, R., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) Model Driven Architecture—Foundations and Applications, vol. 5562 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 18–33. Springer, Berlin (2009)

  93. van Amstel, M., Bosems, S., Kurtev, I.: Performance in model transformations: experiments with ATL and QVT. In: Cabot, J., Visser, E. (eds.) Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, vol. 6707 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 198–212. Springer, Berlin (2011)

  94. van Amstel, M., Lange, C., van den Brand, M.: Metrics for analyzing the quality of model transformations. In: Proceedings of the 12th ECOOP Workshop on Quantitative Approaches on Object Oriented Software Engineering (QAOOSE08), pp. 41–51. Paphos, Cyprus (2008)

  95. van Amstel, M., van den Brand, M.: Quality Assessment of ATL Model Transformations using Metrics, Technical Report. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eidhoven University of Technology (2010)

  96. van Amstel, M.F.: The right tool for the right job: assessing model transformation quality. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 34th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference Workshops, COMPSACW ’10, pp. 69–74. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2010)

  97. Van Amstel, M.F., Van Den Brand, M.G.J.: Model Transformation Analysis: Staying ahead of the maintenance nightmare. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, ICMT’11, pp. 108–122. Springer, Berlin (2011)

  98. Van Baalen, J., Robinson, P., Lowry, M., Pressburger, T.: Explaining synthesized software. In: Proceedings of 13th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 1998, pp. 240–248 (1998)

  99. Varró, D., Pataricza, A.: Automated formal verification of model transformations. In: Jürjens, J., Rumpe, B., France, R., Fernandez, E.B. (eds.) CSDUML 2003: Critical Systems Development in UML; Proceedings of the UML’03 Workshop, number TUM-I0323 in Technical Report, pp. 63–78. Technische Universität München, September (2003)

  100. Varró, D., Varró-Gyapay, S., Ehrig, H., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Termination analysis of model transformations by Petri nets. In: ICGT, pp. 260–274 (2006)

  101. Vignaga, A.: Measuring Atl Transformations. Technical report, MaTE. Department of Computer Science, Universidad de Chile (2009)

  102. Vignaga, A.: Metrics for Measuring ATL Model Transformations. Technical report. MaTE, Department of Computer Science, Universidad de Chile (2009)

  103. Wang, J., Kim, S.-K., Carrington, D.: Verifying metamodel coverage of model transformations. In: Australian Software Engineering Conference, pp. 270–282. IEEE (2006)

  104. Wang, J., Kim, S.-K., Carrington, D.: Automatic generation of test models for model transformations. In: 19th Australian Conference on Software Engineering (ASWEC’08), pp. 432–440. IEEE (2008)

  105. Whittle, J., Gajanovic, B.: Model transformations should be more than just model generators. In: Satellite Events at the MoDELS 2005 Conference, pp. 32–38. Springer, Berlin (2005)

  106. Whittle, J., Van Baalen, J., Schumann, J., Robinson, P., Pressburger, T., Penix, J., Oh, P., Lowry, M., Brat, G.: Amphion/NAV: deductive synthesis of state estimation software. In: Proceedings of 16th Annual International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE’01), pp. 395–399. IEEE (2001)

  107. Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Kusel, A., Retschitzegger, W., Schoenboeck, J., Schwinger, W.: Right or wrong?—verification of model transformations using colored Petri nets. In: Proceedings of the 9th OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modelling (2009)

  108. Zelenov, S., Silakov, D., Petrenko, A., Conrad, M., Fey, I.: Automatic test generation for model-based code generators. In: 2nd International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation (ISoLA 2006), pp. 75–81. IEEE (2006)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lukman Ab. Rahim.

Additional information

Communicated by Dr. Jeff Gray.

The research described in this paper was part of a Ph.D. research project sponsored by Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Lancaster University and an ORSAS grant (Overseas Research Students Award Scheme).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ab. Rahim, L., Whittle, J. A survey of approaches for verifying model transformations. Softw Syst Model 14, 1003–1028 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-013-0358-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-013-0358-0

Keywords

Navigation