M. Wimmer
ABSTRACT
A crucial prerequisite for the success of Model Driven Engineering (MDE) is the seamless exchange of models between different modeling tools demanding for mappings between tool-specific metamodels. Thereby the resolution of heterogeneities between these tool-specific metamodels is a ubiquitous problem representing the key challenge. Nevertheless, there is no comprehensive classification of potential heterogeneities available in the domain of MDE. This hinders the specification of a comprehensive benchmark explicating requirements wrt. expressivity of mapping tools, which provide reusable components for resolving these heterogeneities.
Therefore, we propose a feature-based classification of heterogeneities, which accordingly adapts and extends existing classifications. This feature-based classification builds the basis for a mapping benchmark, thereby providing a comprehensive set of requirements concerning expressivity of dedicated mapping tools. In this paper a first set of benchmark examples is presented by means of metamodels and conforming models acting as an evaluation suite for mapping tools.
- }}B. Alexe, W.-C. Tan, and Y. Velegrakis. STBenchmark: Towards a Benchmark for Mapping Systems. VLDB Endow., 1(1):230--244, 2008. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- }}C. Batini, M. Lenzerini, and S. B. Navathe. A Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Database Schema Integration. ACM Comp. Surv., 18(4):323--364, 1986. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}J. Bézivin. On the Unification Power of Models. Journal on SoSyM, 4(2):31, 2005.Google Scholar
- }}M. Blaha and W. Premerlani. A catalog of object model transformations. In Proc. of the 3rd Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, WCRE'96, pages 87--96, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}K. Czarnecki, S. Helsen, and U. Eisenecker. Staged Configuration Using Feature Models. In Proc. of Third Software Product Line Conf., pages 266--283, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- }}M. Del Fabro and P. Valduriez. Towards the efficient development of model transformations using model weaving and matching transformations. Journal on SoSyM, 8(3):305--324, July 2009.Google Scholar
- }}J. Hammer, M. Stonebraker, and O. Topsakal. THALIA: Test harness for the assessment of legacy information integration approaches. In Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Data Engineering, ICDE, pages 485--486, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}D. Harel and B. Rumpe. Meaningful modeling: What's the semantics of "semantics"? Computer, 37:64--72, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}R. Hull and R. King. Semantic Database Modeling: Survey, Applications, and Research Issues. ACM Comput. Surv., 19(3):201--260, 1987. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}V. Kashyap and A. Sheth. Semantic and schematic similarities between database objects: A context-based approach. The VLDB Journal, 5(4):276--304, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}W. Kim and J. Seo. Classifying Schematic and Data Heterogeneity in Multidatabase Systems. Computer, 24(12):12--18, 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}M. Klein. Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions. In Proc. of Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing, IJCAIŠ01, 2001.Google Scholar
- }}F. Legler and F. Naumann. A Classification of Schema Mappings and Analysis of Mapping Tools. In Proc. of the GI-Fachtagung für Datenbanksysteme in Business, Technologie und Web (BTW'07), 2007.Google Scholar
- }}F. Scharffe and D. Fensel. Correspondence Patterns for Ontology Alignment. In Proc. of the 16th Int. Conf. on Knowledge Engineering, EKAW '08, pages 83--92, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}A. P. Sheth and J. A. Larson. Federated Database Systems for Managing Distributed, Heterogeneous, and Autonomous Databases. ACM Comput. Surv., 22(3):183--236, 1990. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}G. Varro, A. Schürr, and D. Varro. Benchmarking for graph transformation. In Proc. of the 2005 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, VLHCC '05, pages 79--88, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}P. R. S. Visser, D. M. Jones, T. J. M. Bench-Capon, and M. J. R. Shave. An analysis of ontological mismatches: Heterogeneity versus interoperability. In Proc. of AAAI 1997 Spring Symposium on Ontological Engineering, 1997.Google Scholar
- }}M. Wimmer, G. Kappel, A. Kusel, W. Retschitzegger, J. Schönböck, and W. Schwinger. Surviving the Heterogeneity Jungle with Composite Mapping Operators. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Conf. on Model Transformation, ICMT 2010, pages 260--275, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Towards an expressivity benchmark for mappings based on a systematic classification of heterogeneities
Recommendations
A benchmark for OCL engine accuracy, determinateness, and efficiency
Since several years, the Object Constraint Language (OCL) is a central component in modeling and transformation languages like the Unified Modeling Language, the Meta Object Facility, and Query View Transformation. Consequently, approaches MDE (Model-...
From the heterogeneity jungle to systematic benchmarking
MODELS'10: Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on Models in software engineeringOne of the key challenges in the development of model transformations is the resolution of recurring semantic and syntactic heterogeneities. Thus, we provide a systematic classification of heterogeneities building upon a feature model that makes the ...
Visualizing model mappings in UML
SoftVis '03: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM symposium on Software visualizationWhenever multiple representations or models of a system exist, there is the possibility of defining how they relate. In model driven software development, it is essential that these mappings are defined precisely and automated as far as possible: they ...
Comments