Zinovy Diskin
Yingfei Xiong
ABSTRACT
Software development often involves a set of models defined in different metamodels, each model capturing a specific view of the system. We call this set a mutlimodel, and its elements partial or local models. Since partial models overlap, they may be consistent or inconsistent wrt. a set of global constraints.
We present a framework for specifying overlaps between partial models and defining their global consistency. An advantage of the framework is that heterogeneous consistency checking is reduced to the homogeneous case yet merging partial metamodels into one global metamodel is not needed. We illustrate the framework with examples and sketch a formal semantics for it based on category theory.
- }}M. Alanen and I. Porres. Difference and union of models. In UML, pages 2--17, 2003.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- }}G. Antoniol, G. Canfora, G. Casazza, A. De Lucia, and E. Merlo. Recovering traceability links between code and documentation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(10):970--983, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}M. Barr and C. Wells. Category theory for computing science. Prentice Hall, 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}P. Bernstein and R. Pottinger. Merging models based on given correspondences. In VLDB, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}B. Cadish and Z. Diskin. Heterogenious view integration via sketches and equations. In ISMIS, pages 603--612, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}Z. Diskin. Model synchronization, mappings, tile algebra, and categories. In GTTSE'09. Springer. To appear. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}S. M. Easterbrook and M. Chechik. A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints. In ICSE, pages 411--420, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}A. Egyed. Heterogeneous view integration and its automation. PhD thesis, University of Southern California, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}A. Egyed. Instant consistency checking for the UML. In ICSE, pages 381--390, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}A. Egyed. Fixing inconsistencies in UML design models. In ICSE, pages 292--301, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}H. Ehrig, K. Ehrig, U. Prange, and G. Taenzer. Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}H. Ehrig, R. Heckel, G. Taentzer, and G. Engels. A combined reference model - and view-based approach to system specification. Int. Journal of Software and Knowledge Engeneering, 7:457--477, 1997.Google ScholarCross Ref
- }}J. L. Fiadeiro and T. S. E. Maibaum. Interconnecting formalisms: Supporting modularity, reuse and incrementality. In SIGSOFT FSE, pages 72--80, 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}J. Goguen and R. Burstall. Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming. Journal of ACM, 39(1):95--146, 1992. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}B. Jacobs. Categorical logic and type theory. Elsevier Science Publishers, 1999.Google Scholar
- }}S. Jurack and G. Taentzer. Towards composite model transformations using distributed graph transformation concepts. In MoDELS, pages 226--240, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}H. Liang, Z. Diskin, J. Dingel, and E. Posse. A general approach for scenario integration. In MoDELS, pages 204--218, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}H. Liefke and S. Davidson. View maintenance for hierarchical semistructured data. In DaWaK, pages 114--125, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}C. Nentwich, W. Emmerich, and A. Finkelstein. Consistency management with repair actions. In ICSE, pages 455--464, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}B. Nuseibeh, J. Kramer, and A. Finkelstein. Viewpoints: meaningful relationships are difficult! In ICSE, pages 676--683, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}M. Sabetzadeh and S. M. Easterbrook. View merging in the presence of incompleteness and inconsistency. Requir. Eng., 11(3):174--193, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}M. Sabetzadeh, S. Nejati, S. Liaskos, S. M. Easterbrook, and M. Chechik. Consistency checking of conceptual models via model merging. In RE, pages 221--230. IEEE, 2007.Google Scholar
- }}S. Spaccapietra and C. Parent. View integration: A step forward in solving structural conflicts. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 6(2):258--274, 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- }}R. V. D. Straeten, T. Mens, J. Simmonds, and V. Jonckers. Using description logic to maintain consistency between UML Models. In UML, pages 326--340, 2003.Google Scholar
- }}J. Warmer and A. Kleppe. The Object Constraint Language. Precise modeling with UML. Addison-Wesley, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Specifying overlaps of heterogeneous models for global consistency checking
Recommendations
Specifying overlaps of heterogeneous models for global consistency checking
MODELS'10: Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on Models in software engineeringSoftware development often involves a set of models defined in different metamodels, each model capturing a specific view of the system. We call this set a multimodel, and its elements partial or local models. Since partial models overlap, they may be ...
Timing consistency checking for UML/MARTE behavioral models
UML/MARTE model-driven development approaches are gaining attention in developing real-time embedded software (RTES). UML behavioral models with MARTE annotations are used to describe timing behaviors and timing characteristics of RTES. Particularly, ...
A Survey of Consistency Checking Techniques for UML Models
ASEA '08: Proceedings of the 2008 Advanced Software Engineering and Its ApplicationsUML is the de-facto industry standard to design object-oriented software. UML provides a set of diagrams to model every aspect of an object-oriented application design in sufficient detail, but lacks any mechanism to rigorously check consistency between ...
Comments