A comparison of model migration tools

  • Authors:
  • Louis M. Rose;Markus Herrmannsdoerfer;James R. Williams;Dimitrios S. Kolovos;Kelly Garcés;Richard F. Paige;Fiona A. C. Polack

  • Affiliations:
  • Department of Computer Science, University of York, UK;Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, Germany;Department of Computer Science, University of York, UK;Department of Computer Science, University of York, UK;AtlanMod, EMN, INRIA, Nantes, France and ASCOLA, LINA, INRIA, Nantes, France;Department of Computer Science, University of York, UK;Department of Computer Science, University of York, UK

  • Venue:
  • MODELS'10 Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Model driven engineering languages and systems: Part I
  • Year:
  • 2010

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Modelling languages and thus their metamodels are subject to change. When a metamodel evolves, existing models may no longer conform to the evolved metamodel. To avoid rebuilding them from scratch, existing models must be migrated to conform to the evolved metamodel. Manually migrating existing models is tedious and errorprone. To alleviate this, several tools have been proposed to build a migration strategy that automates the migration of existing models. Little is known about the advantages and disadvantages of the tools in different situations. In this paper, we thus compare a representative sample of migration tools - AML, COPE, Ecore2Ecore and Epsilon Flock - using common migration examples. The criteria used in the comparison aim to support users in selecting the most appropriate tool for their situation.