|
Re: Evaluation of transformations with OCL [message #33671 is a reply to message #33638] |
Fri, 20 July 2007 20:06 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: cdamus.ca.ibm.com
Hi, Andrew,
Are you dealing with metamodel-to-metamodel transformations, or with
model-to-model transformations in the same metamodel? Note that OCL (as
implemented in MDT) supports only the Ecore and UML metamodels, to date.
You may want to ask about this on the GMT and/or M2M newsgroups. There QVT
implementations in the works in these projects, and their communities have
some valuable insight.
Cheers,
Christian
Andrew Carton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if anyone has experience with evaluating transformations
> with OCL. From my limited knowledge on the subject, I believe constraint
> based checking can be used to verify that a transformation is correct.
> By providing a redundant specification in OCL of the result of the
> transformation can a transformation be evaluated? If anyone have any
> tips, tools, papers or links that may be of interest I would appreciate
> it.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew.
|
|
|
Re: Evaluation of transformations with OCL [message #33805 is a reply to message #33638] |
Tue, 24 July 2007 08:45 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: wah.zurich.ibm.com
Andrew,
we have written a paper a while ago in which we use OCL to specify the
preconditions and postconditions of transformations. It may contain some
useful information for you.
You can find a PDF version of the paper here:
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/441/koehler.pdf
Regards,
Michael
Andrew Carton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if anyone has experience with evaluating transformations
> with OCL. From my limited knowledge on the subject, I believe constraint
> based checking can be used to verify that a transformation is correct.
> By providing a redundant specification in OCL of the result of the
> transformation can a transformation be evaluated? If anyone have any
> tips, tools, papers or links that may be of interest I would appreciate it.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.15010 seconds