Home » Archived » M2M (modeltomodel transformation) » [ATL] Model Formalisms
[ATL] Model Formalisms [message #68408] 
Mon, 10 December 2007 06:38 
Eclipse User 



Originally posted by: irbull.cs.uvic.ca
Hi everyone,
Does anyone know of any good references around model transformation
formalisms and in particular the formalisms of model transformed using
languages ``like'' ATL?
What I mean is, given a Model a and Model b (with MMa and MMb) and a
transformation T (from MMa to MMb), is there anything we can say about
MMb with respect to MMa. (Is it some sort of subset, etc...). I am
trying to understand if there is any way of determining formally if a
transformation is possible or impossible.
i.e. If MMb is a subset of MMa is it always possible? etc...
any tips or pointers would be great.
Thanks,
Ian



Re: [ATL] Model Formalisms [message #68441 is a reply to message #68408] 
Mon, 10 December 2007 09:35 
Eclipse User 



Originally posted by: mikael.barbero.gmail.com
Hi Ian,
AFAIK, we can consider a transformation T as a partial function (total
or not) defined by the mapping written in ATL for instance. MMa and MMb
only are domain and codomain of this function. I don't think we can
consider more properties between MMb and MMa in the general case.
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
Mikael
Ian Bull wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Does anyone know of any good references around model transformation
> formalisms and in particular the formalisms of model transformed using
> languages ``like'' ATL?
>
> What I mean is, given a Model a and Model b (with MMa and MMb) and a
> transformation T (from MMa to MMb), is there anything we can say about
> MMb with respect to MMa. (Is it some sort of subset, etc...). I am
> trying to understand if there is any way of determining formally if a
> transformation is possible or impossible.
>
> i.e. If MMb is a subset of MMa is it always possible? etc...
>
> any tips or pointers would be great.
>
> Thanks,
> Ian
>

Mikaël Barbero  PhD Candidate
ATLAS Group (INRIA & LINA)  University of Nantes
2, rue de la Houssinière
44322 Nantes Cedex 3  France
tel. +33 2 51 12 58 08 /\ cell.+33 6 07 63 19 00
email: Mikael.Barbero@{gmail.com, univnantes.fr}
http://www.sciences.univnantes.fr/lina/atl/


 
Re: [ATL] Model Formalisms [message #68594 is a reply to message #68441] 
Tue, 11 December 2007 01:16 
Eclipse User 



Originally posted by: irbull.cs.uvic.ca
Thanks Mikaël,
Does it necessarily have to be a partial function (i.e. does each
element map to *at most* one element in the codomain). If we use the
impartive part of ATL, can this be broken (because we can always add a
body to a rule that calls other rules to create more than 1 new element)?
Sorry if this doesn't make sense, I have been doing these
transformations for a few years now, but haven't really thought about
them formally until recently.
thanks,
ian
Mikaël Barbero wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> AFAIK, we can consider a transformation T as a partial function (total
> or not) defined by the mapping written in ATL for instance. MMa and MMb
> only are domain and codomain of this function. I don't think we can
> consider more properties between MMb and MMa in the general case.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Best regards,
> Mikael
>
> Ian Bull wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Does anyone know of any good references around model transformation
>> formalisms and in particular the formalisms of model transformed using
>> languages ``like'' ATL?
>>
>> What I mean is, given a Model a and Model b (with MMa and MMb) and a
>> transformation T (from MMa to MMb), is there anything we can say about
>> MMb with respect to MMa. (Is it some sort of subset, etc...). I am
>> trying to understand if there is any way of determining formally if a
>> transformation is possible or impossible.
>>
>> i.e. If MMb is a subset of MMa is it always possible? etc...
>>
>> any tips or pointers would be great.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ian
>>
>
>
>



Re: [ATL] Model Formalisms [message #68602 is a reply to message #68516] 
Tue, 11 December 2007 01:16 
Eclipse User 



Originally posted by: irbull.cs.uvic.ca
Thanks Miguel,
These links are great!
cheers,
ian
Miguel Garcia wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Perhaps the following workshop (around verification and validation for MDSD)
> is a onestopshow on current work in the field. Proceedings at
> http://www.modeva.org/2007/modevva07.pdf
>
> The charter of that workshop states:
>
> "... Major questions that crosscut V&V and MDE include: Is the result of a
> transformation really what the user intended? Is the model correct with
> respect to the expected security, time, and structural constraints? What
> models can be used for validation or for verification? Does the
> implementation, generated after several model transformations, conform to
> the initial requirements? ..."
>
>
> If I have to choose one paper, my pick is:
>
> Analysis of Model Transformations via Alloy
> Kyriakos Anastasakis, Behzad Bordbarand and Jochen M. Küster
> (pp. 4756)
>
>
> Miguel
>
>
> "Ian Bull" <irbull@cs.uvic.ca> wrote in message
> news:fjimsk$8mm$1@build.eclipse.org...
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Does anyone know of any good references around model transformation
>> formalisms and in particular the formalisms of model transformed using
>> languages ``like'' ATL?
>>
>> What I mean is, given a Model a and Model b (with MMa and MMb) and a
>> transformation T (from MMa to MMb), is there anything we can say about MMb
>> with respect to MMa. (Is it some sort of subset, etc...). I am trying to
>> understand if there is any way of determining formally if a transformation
>> is possible or impossible.
>>
>> i.e. If MMb is a subset of MMa is it always possible? etc...
>>
>> any tips or pointers would be great.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ian
>>
>
>



Re: [ATL] Model Formalisms [message #68721 is a reply to message #68594] 
Tue, 11 December 2007 10:12 
Eclipse User 



Originally posted by: mikael.barbero.gmail.com
Ian,
In fact, I was a bit simplifying the problem. First of all, I only
consider *declarative* part of ATL (imperative part only is for some
very specific issues that can not be deal with declarative part and is
not very interesting for reasoning on transformations).
I was also simplifying the case where a rule match only 1 model element
(despite ATL can match more than one) and create one element. I agree
this is over simplification.
If we consider declarative ATL in the large (n,n), we are facing a nary
relation. This property may not be very interesting by itself and may
not allow to extract derived properties from the transformation.
I hope this will be helpful to you.
Best regards,
Mikael
Ps: It makes sense ;) but i'm not very formally thinking on model
transformations neither.
Ian Bull wrote:
> Thanks Mikaël,
>
> Does it necessarily have to be a partial function (i.e. does each
> element map to *at most* one element in the codomain). If we use the
> impartive part of ATL, can this be broken (because we can always add a
> body to a rule that calls other rules to create more than 1 new element)?
>
> Sorry if this doesn't make sense, I have been doing these
> transformations for a few years now, but haven't really thought about
> them formally until recently.
>
> thanks,
> ian
>
> Mikaël Barbero wrote:
>> Hi Ian,
>>
>> AFAIK, we can consider a transformation T as a partial function (total
>> or not) defined by the mapping written in ATL for instance. MMa and
>> MMb only are domain and codomain of this function. I don't think we
>> can consider more properties between MMb and MMa in the general case.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Mikael
>>
>> Ian Bull wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Does anyone know of any good references around model transformation
>>> formalisms and in particular the formalisms of model transformed
>>> using languages ``like'' ATL?
>>>
>>> What I mean is, given a Model a and Model b (with MMa and MMb) and a
>>> transformation T (from MMa to MMb), is there anything we can say
>>> about MMb with respect to MMa. (Is it some sort of subset, etc...).
>>> I am trying to understand if there is any way of determining formally
>>> if a transformation is possible or impossible.
>>>
>>> i.e. If MMb is a subset of MMa is it always possible? etc...
>>>
>>> any tips or pointers would be great.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ian
>>>
>>
>>
>>

Mikaël Barbero  PhD Candidate
ATLAS Group (INRIA & LINA)  University of Nantes
2, rue de la Houssinière
44322 Nantes Cedex 3  France
tel. +33 2 51 12 58 08 /\ cell.+33 6 07 63 19 00
email: Mikael.Barbero@{gmail.com, univnantes.fr}
http://www.sciences.univnantes.fr/lina/atl/



Re: [ATL] Model Formalisms [message #68803 is a reply to message #68721] 
Tue, 11 December 2007 15:45 
Eclipse User 



Originally posted by: irbull.cs.uvic.ca
Thanks again.
I assumed you were thinking the declarative part, but I just wanted to
make sure.
The reason I was asking is because I am just finishing my dissertation
on using MDE to create interactive visualizations of information. I
have several MM for for viewers (graphs, charts, heatmaps, etc...) and
using model transformations I can specify how the visualization should
work. I know this works in practice, but I wanted to give some advice
on how well it works in theory (can this always be done, etc...). There
are some cases when I have to use operational (imperative)
transformations, and it usually is a result of needing multiple elements
in the visualizations for a single source.
Thanks for all your help. I did find some good links on this stuff as
well, I will get them organized and post them here in case others have
questions too.
Cheers,
ian
Mikaël Barbero wrote:
> Ian,
>
> In fact, I was a bit simplifying the problem. First of all, I only
> consider *declarative* part of ATL (imperative part only is for some
> very specific issues that can not be deal with declarative part and is
> not very interesting for reasoning on transformations).
>
> I was also simplifying the case where a rule match only 1 model element
> (despite ATL can match more than one) and create one element. I agree
> this is over simplification.
>
> If we consider declarative ATL in the large (n,n), we are facing a nary
> relation. This property may not be very interesting by itself and may
> not allow to extract derived properties from the transformation.
>
> I hope this will be helpful to you.
>
> Best regards,
> Mikael
>
> Ps: It makes sense ;) but i'm not very formally thinking on model
> transformations neither.
>
>
> Ian Bull wrote:
>> Thanks Mikaël,
>>
>> Does it necessarily have to be a partial function (i.e. does each
>> element map to *at most* one element in the codomain). If we use the
>> impartive part of ATL, can this be broken (because we can always add a
>> body to a rule that calls other rules to create more than 1 new element)?
>>
>> Sorry if this doesn't make sense, I have been doing these
>> transformations for a few years now, but haven't really thought about
>> them formally until recently.
>>
>> thanks,
>> ian
>>
>> Mikaël Barbero wrote:
>>> Hi Ian,
>>>
>>> AFAIK, we can consider a transformation T as a partial function
>>> (total or not) defined by the mapping written in ATL for instance.
>>> MMa and MMb only are domain and codomain of this function. I don't
>>> think we can consider more properties between MMb and MMa in the
>>> general case.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Mikael
>>>
>>> Ian Bull wrote:
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know of any good references around model transformation
>>>> formalisms and in particular the formalisms of model transformed
>>>> using languages ``like'' ATL?
>>>>
>>>> What I mean is, given a Model a and Model b (with MMa and MMb) and a
>>>> transformation T (from MMa to MMb), is there anything we can say
>>>> about MMb with respect to MMa. (Is it some sort of subset,
>>>> etc...). I am trying to understand if there is any way of
>>>> determining formally if a transformation is possible or impossible.
>>>>
>>>> i.e. If MMb is a subset of MMa is it always possible? etc...
>>>>
>>>> any tips or pointers would be great.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>



Re: [ATL] Model Formalisms [message #68916 is a reply to message #68803] 
Tue, 11 December 2007 17:49 
Miguel Garcia Messages: 77 Registered: July 2009 
Member 


Ian,
That topic has to do with another ongoing PhD blogged at
http://visuallanguages.blogspot.com/
And there's a very short (2page) paper also touchign that topic,
"Mapping visual notations to MOF compliant models with QVT Relations"
The URL is http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1244228
So I guess we all want to read your dissertation once it's ready :)
Miguel
"Ian Bull" <irbull@cs.uvic.ca> wrote in message
news:475EB085.8030502@cs.uvic.ca...
> Thanks again.
>
> I assumed you were thinking the declarative part, but I just wanted to
> make sure.
>
> The reason I was asking is because I am just finishing my dissertation on
> using MDE to create interactive visualizations of information. I have
> several MM for for viewers (graphs, charts, heatmaps, etc...) and using
> model transformations I can specify how the visualization should work. I
> know this works in practice, but I wanted to give some advice on how well
> it works in theory (can this always be done, etc...). There are some
> cases when I have to use operational (imperative) transformations, and it
> usually is a result of needing multiple elements in the visualizations for
> a single source.
>
> Thanks for all your help. I did find some good links on this stuff as
> well, I will get them organized and post them here in case others have
> questions too.
>
> Cheers,
> ian
>
> Mika



Re: [ATL] Model Formalisms [message #69017 is a reply to message #68916] 
Tue, 11 December 2007 22:50 
Eclipse User 



Originally posted by: irbull.cs.uvic.ca
Thanks Miguel,
This is a great reference.
I am doing my research in a group focused more on Information
Visualization than MD(E/A/D). It has been a good battle learning all
the modeling technologies, but a lot of fun. My primary research
objective is to determine how MD(E/A/D) can be used in the creation and
customization of interactive information visualization.
For someone learning modeling on their own, newsgroups like this have
been a great resource.
cheers,
ian
Miguel Garcia wrote:
> Ian,
>
> That topic has to do with another ongoing PhD blogged at
> http://visuallanguages.blogspot.com/
>
> And there's a very short (2page) paper also touchign that topic,
> "Mapping visual notations to MOF compliant models with QVT Relations"
> The URL is http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1244228
>
> So I guess we all want to read your dissertation once it's ready :)
>
>
> Miguel
>
>
> "Ian Bull" <irbull@cs.uvic.ca> wrote in message
> news:475EB085.8030502@cs.uvic.ca...
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> I assumed you were thinking the declarative part, but I just wanted to
>> make sure.
>>
>> The reason I was asking is because I am just finishing my dissertation on
>> using MDE to create interactive visualizations of information. I have
>> several MM for for viewers (graphs, charts, heatmaps, etc...) and using
>> model transformations I can specify how the visualization should work. I
>> know this works in practice, but I wanted to give some advice on how well
>> it works in theory (can this always be done, etc...). There are some
>> cases when I have to use operational (imperative) transformations, and it
>> usually is a result of needing multiple elements in the visualizations for
>> a single source.
>>
>> Thanks for all your help. I did find some good links on this stuff as
>> well, I will get them organized and post them here in case others have
>> questions too.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> ian
>>
>> Mikaël Barbero wrote:
>>> Ian,
>>>
>>> In fact, I was a bit simplifying the problem. First of all, I only
>>> consider *declarative* part of ATL (imperative part only is for some very
>>> specific issues that can not be deal with declarative part and is not
>>> very interesting for reasoning on transformations).
>>>
>>> I was also simplifying the case where a rule match only 1 model element
>>> (despite ATL can match more than one) and create one element. I agree
>>> this is over simplification.
>>>
>>> If we consider declarative ATL in the large (n,n), we are facing a nary
>>> relation. This property may not be very interesting by itself and may not
>>> allow to extract derived properties from the transformation.
>>>
>>> I hope this will be helpful to you.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Mikael
>>>
>>> Ps: It makes sense ;) but i'm not very formally thinking on model
>>> transformations neither.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Bull wrote:
>>>> Thanks Mikaël,
>>>>
>>>> Does it necessarily have to be a partial function (i.e. does each
>>>> element map to *at most* one element in the codomain). If we use the
>>>> impartive part of ATL, can this be broken (because we can always add a
>>>> body to a rule that calls other rules to create more than 1 new
>>>> element)?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry if this doesn't make sense, I have been doing these
>>>> transformations for a few years now, but haven't really thought about
>>>> them formally until recently.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> ian
>>>>
>>>> Mikaël Barbero wrote:
>>>>> Hi Ian,
>>>>>
>>>>> AFAIK, we can consider a transformation T as a partial function (total
>>>>> or not) defined by the mapping written in ATL for instance. MMa and MMb
>>>>> only are domain and codomain of this function. I don't think we can
>>>>> consider more properties between MMb and MMa in the general case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Mikael
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian Bull wrote:
>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone know of any good references around model transformation
>>>>>> formalisms and in particular the formalisms of model transformed using
>>>>>> languages ``like'' ATL?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I mean is, given a Model a and Model b (with MMa and MMb) and a
>>>>>> transformation T (from MMa to MMb), is there anything we can say about
>>>>>> MMb with respect to MMa. (Is it some sort of subset, etc...). I am
>>>>>> trying to understand if there is any way of determining formally if a
>>>>>> transformation is possible or impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i.e. If MMb is a subset of MMa is it always possible? etc...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> any tips or pointers would be great.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>



Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Dec 04 13:33:28 GMT 2023
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02882 seconds
