1 / 22

Towards Typechecking for Model Transformations by Monadic 2 nd -Order Logic

Towards Typechecking for Model Transformations by Monadic 2 nd -Order Logic. Kazuhiro Inaba ( 稲葉 一浩 ) @ NII, BiG Team Nov 16, 2009 Changsha 3 rd Bi-Trans in ABC. Checking Models Every Time. Model Transformation F. Model A. Model F(A). Typechecking. Typechecking. Metamodel M1.

gaille
Download Presentation

Towards Typechecking for Model Transformations by Monadic 2 nd -Order Logic

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Towards Typechecking for Model Transformations by Monadic 2nd-Order Logic Kazuhiro Inaba (稲葉 一浩) @ NII, BiG Team Nov 16, 2009 Changsha 3rd Bi-Trans in ABC

  2. Checking Models Every Time ModelTransformation F Model A Model F(A) Typechecking Typechecking Metamodel M1 Metamodel M2

  3. Checking TransformationOnly Once! ModelTransformation F “Any model satisfying M1 always outputs by F a model of M2!” Checkingof ModelTransformation Metamodel M1 Metamodel M2

  4. Our Approach: Use Logic ModelTransformation F Covert to Logic Formula Metamodel M2 Metamodel M1 “output satisfies M2” Valid! (True for any model!) Solver “Input and Output are related by F” ⇒ & “input satisfies M1”

  5. Agenda • From Model Transformation to Logic • MSO Logic, Graphs, Schemas and UnCAL • Validation of MSO Logic Formula • Conclusion and Future Work • Application to Bidirectional Transformation

  6. Monadic 2nd-Order Logic (MSO) connected(x,y) :=∃set P. (x ∈ P & y ∈ P & ∀u,v.(u∈P & edge(u,v)⇒ v∈P) & …) • MSO is a • Usual 1st order predicate logic • Boolean ops and quantifiers: ￢,　∧, ∨, ∀, ∃ • …extended with “set-quantifications”: ∀set∃set • E,g,.,

  7. Graph (Model) a c a b c d • We regard models as edge-labeled graphs  i.e., we consider the problem of typechecking for graph transformation

  8. Schema (Metamodel) class Customer { reference email [1-*] : String; reference order [0-*] : Order; } class Order { reference no [1-*] : Int; reference order_of [1-*] : Customer; } Only [0-*] and [1-*] is allowed Subset of KM3 [Jouault&Bezivin ‘06]

  9. Converting Schema to MSO Customer class Customer { reference email [1-*] : String; reference order [0-*] : Order; } email order “a@b.c” order Order Order ∀e: label_Customer(e) ⇒ ∃set C1, C2. outgoing(e, C1∪C2) & |C1|≧1 & ∀f∈C1. (label_email(f) & …) & |C2|≧0 & ∀f∈C2. (label_order(f) &∃g. outgoing(f, {g}) & label_Order(g))

  10. Transformation Language rec(λ($L, _). // for each edge if $L = a then {d: &} // if label=a change to d else if $L = c then & // if label=c, delete else {$L: &} // otherwise, keep unchanged) • UnCAL [Buneman&Fernandez&Suiciu ‘00] • Internal Graph Algebra of GRoundTram • Based on “Structural Recursion” on graphs

  11. Converting UnCAL to MSO rec(λ($L, _). if $L = a then {d: &} else if $L = c then & else {$L: &} ) d a b b d d ε c outgraph_label_d(e)⇔ ingraph_label_a(e) ∨ ingraph_label_d(e)∧outgraph_label_a(e) ⇔ false ∧outgraph_label_b(e) ⇔ ingraph_label_b(e) ∧outgraph_label_c(e) ⇔ false ∧outgraph_label_ε(e) ⇔ ingraph_label_c(e)

  12. [Revisited] Our Approach ModelTransformation F Covert to Logic Formula Metamodel M2 Metamodel M1 “output satisfies M2” Valid! (True for any graph!) Solver “Input and Output are related by F” ⇒ & “input satisfies M1”

  13. Bad News Valid! (True for any graph!) Theorem [Trakhtenbrot 50]:Validness property is undecidable on graphs, even for 1st-order logic.

  14. Not-so-bad News • MSO validness is decidable on trees. [Thatcher&Wright68] • Also decidable on tree-likegraphs (bounded tree-width),but it’s too tree-like • Models are general graphs!

  15. Good News a c UnCAL Transformation Unfolding Unfolding a a a c c c ・・・ ∞ ・・・ ∞ UnCAL is bisimulation-generic. [BFS ‘00]

  16. Our Approach:Infinite Trees Decidable! UnCAL and our schema do not distinguish a graph and its unfolded infinite tree Our MSO formulas are valid (true on all graphs) ifftrue on all infinite trees

  17. Our Approach:Infinite Trees to Finite Trees ✂ c c c c ✂ ・・・ ∞ c c ✂ c c c ✂ ・・・ Bad: Deciding MSO on infinite trees is costy Good: Considering only Finite Cuts suffices

  18. Type Correctness Metamodel Metamodel Transformation Validness of MSO Formula on Graphs Validness of MSO Formula on Infinite Trees Validness of MSO Formula on Finite Trees Checked by the Well-known Solver MONA ΦM1&ΦF⇒ΦM2 ΦM1&ΦF⇒ΦM2 Φ’M1&Φ’F⇒Φ’M2

  19. Demo (For showing the taste of the system)

  20. Summary Typechecking is reduced to MSO Validness Not by restricting to tree-like graphs, butby exploiting the Bisimulation-Genericity of UnCAL

  21. Ongoing Work • To Finish Implementation  • Performance Improvements • Supporting larger class of translation • Application to Bidirectional Transformation • “Updatability”: the following formula defines the set of outputs having corresponding inputs Φ’M1&Φ’F&Φ’M2

  22. Thank you for listening!

More Related