Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T16:57:53.554Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combining termination proofs in model transformation systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 June 2014

DÉNES BISZTRAY  and
REIKO HECKEL
DÉNES BISZTRAY
Affiliation:
Technology and Innovation, Nokia Solutions and Networks, Budapest, Hungary Email: denes.bisztray@nsn.com
REIKO HECKEL
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom Email: reiko@mcs.le.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In model transformations, where source models are automatically translated into target models or code, termination is necessary for the transformation to be well defined. There are a number of specific termination criteria that can be used when specifying model transformations by graph transformation, though termination is undecidable in general. Unfortunately, and particularly for large and heterogeneous specifications, it is often not possible to use a single termination criterion. In this paper, we propose an approach that applies different criteria to suitable subsets of rules so that termination can be shown locally using the most suitable technique for each subset. Global termination then follows if certain causal dependencies between rules in different subsets are acyclic. The theory is developed at the level of typed attributed graphs, and is motivated and illustrated by a case study translating UML activity diagrams to CSP.

Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 24 , Issue 4: Structure Transformation , August 2014 , 240407
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arendt, T., Biermann, E., Jurack, S., Krause, C. and Taentzer, G. (2010) Henshin: Advanced concepts and tools for in-place EMF model transformations. In: Petriu, D. C., Rouquette, N. and Haugen, O. (eds.) Proceedings 13th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS'10). Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6394 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baader, F. and Nipkow, T. (1998) Term Rewriting and All That, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bisztray, D. (2009) Compositional Verification of Model-Level Refactorings Based on Graph Transformations, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Leicester.Google Scholar
Bisztray, D. and Heckel, R. (2010) Combining termination criteria by isolating deletion. In: Ehrig, H., Rensink, A., Rozenberg, G. and Schrr, A. (eds.) Graph Transformations – Proceedings 5th International Conference (ICGT 2010). Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6372 203–217.Google Scholar
Bottoni, P., Koch, M., Parisi-Presicce, F. and Taentzer, G. (2005) Termination of high-level replacement units with application to model transformation. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 127 (4)71–86.Google Scholar
Braatz, B., Ehrig, H., Gabriel, K. and Golas, U. (2010) Finitary m-adhesive categories. In: Ehrig, H., Rensink, A., Rozenberg, G. and Schrr, A. (eds.) Graph Transformations – Proceedings 5th International Conference (ICGT 2010). Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6372 234–249.Google Scholar
Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., de Lara, J., Taentzer, G., Varró, D. and Varró-Gyapay, S. (2005) Termination criteria for model transformation. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) Proceedings International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2005). Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3442 49–63.Google Scholar
Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U. and Taentzer, G. (2006) Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation, EATCS Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Ermel, C., Rudolf, M. and Taentzer, G. (1999) The AGG approach: Language and environment. In: Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation – volume 2: Applications, Languages and Tools, World Scientific 551–603.Google Scholar
Grimaldi, R. P. (1998) Discrete and Combinatorial Mathematics: An Applied Introduction, 4th edition, Addison Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Habel, A., Heckel, R. and Taentzer, G. (1996) Graph grammars with negative application conditions. Fundamenta Informaticae 26 (3/4)287–313.Google Scholar
Hoare, C. A. R. (1985) Communicating Sequential Processes, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Levendovszky, T., Prange, U. and Ehrig, H. (2007) Termination criteria for dpo transformations with injective matches. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 175 (4)87–100.Google Scholar
OMG (2006) Unified Modeling Language, version 2.1.1. http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htm.Google Scholar
Plump, D. (1998) Termination of graph rewriting is undecidable. Fundamenta Informaticae 33 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schürr, A. (1994) Specification of graph translators with triple graph grammars. In: Mayr, E. W., Schmidt, G. and Tinhofer, G. (eds.) Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science. Proceedings 20th International Workshop (WG'94). Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 903 151–163.Google Scholar
Varró, D.et al. (2008) Transformation of UML models to CSP: A case study for graph transformation tools. In: Schrr, A., Nagl, M. and Zndorf, A. (eds.) Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance – Revised Selected and Invited Papers from Third International Symposium, AGTIVE 2007. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5088 540–565.Google Scholar
Varró, D., Varró-Gyapay, S., Ehrig, H., Prange, U. and Taentzer, G. (2006) Termination analysis of model transformations by Petri nets. In: Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Montanari, U., Ribeiro, L. and Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Proceedings Third International Conference on Graph Transformation (ICGT 2006). Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4178 260–274.Google Scholar