A fundamental approach to model versioning based on graph modifications: from theory to implementation

Taentzer, Gabriele; Ermel, Claudia; Langer, Philip; Wimmer, Manuel

doi:10.1007/s10270-012-0248-x

Cited by 55 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[3,4]). Recently, the approach proposed in [15] tackles inconsistency resolution in model merging but it can only suggest highly abstract repairs (based on graph modification) to the user (as opposed to concrete repairs in our approach). The recent Eclipse's EMF Diff/Merge incubation project [16] also aims to support consistent merging of EMF models by computing the minimal superset of differences that must be merged to preserve consistency.…”

Section: B Correctnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inconsistency Resolution in Merging Versions of Architectural Models

Dam

Reder

Egyed

2014

2014 IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-State-of-the-art optimistic model versioning systems, which are critical to enable efficient team-based development of architectural models, are able to detect and help resolve basic conflicts arising during the merging of model versions. However, it is often overlooked that model merging may also cause severe syntactical and semantic inconsistencies. In this paper, we propose an approach to guide the resolution of inconsistencies detected in a merged architectural model. Our approach automatically finds and presents to the software architects all solutions for resolving all inconsistencies arisen during the merging of model versions. For inconsistencies that preexist in the model, our approach is able to suggest exactly which model elements should be changed to resolve them. Our approach is built upon a repair generation which can quickly derive resolutions for an inconsistency by examining its static and dynamic structure and forming concrete repair actions from changes in the versions to be merged. An empirical validation on a range of industrial models has demonstrated that our approach is scalable to both large models and large differences between model versions.

show abstract

Section: B Correctnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inconsistency Resolution in Merging Versions of Architectural Models

Dam

Reder

Egyed

2014

2014 IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thereby, it requires a nontrivial effort; it is an expensive task in term of performance and space memory. It makes up approximately 58 % of run time [31]. Researchers are more interested in gaining convenient access to the extracted data in an easy to process format [ 17].…”

Section: Change Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting Change Patterns in Aspect Oriented Software Evolution: Rule-based Repository Analysis

Cherait¹,

Bounour²

2014

IJSEIA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[148] provides a mapping of Ecorebased models to typed graph structures to describe state-based as well as delta-based modification to models. The aim of the approach is to support versioning of models, including the resolution of merge conflicts.…”

Section: Bidirectional Transformationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To apply these theoretical proofs to existing metamodelling tools, a formal foundation for metamodelling languages such as MOF and Ecore would have to be provided first. Taentzer et al [148] have provided a theoretical foundation for Ecore-based metamodels using a graph-based representation of models, which could serve as such a formal basis.…”

Section: Lensesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible views for view-based model-driven development

Bürger¹

2013

Proceedings of the 18th International Doctoral Symposium on Components and Architecture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern software development faces growing size and complexity of the systems that are being developed. To cope with this complexity, several languages and modelling formalisms are used during the development of a system in order to describe it from various view points and at multiple levels of abstraction. These languages and modeling formalisms are specific to the domain of the system under development, to the paradigms that are followed, and to the developer tools being used. For example, in a component-based process, the software architecture may be defined using a component metamodel, while class diagrams are used for the object-oriented design of the system; performance and reliability models express the extra-functional properties; program code in a general-purpose programming language defines the execution semantics, and is used for the implementation of the system. Although all these artefacts follow different concepts and formalisms, they express the same system from various view points and can thus be understood as views on the system under development. The entirety of these views can be identified as a complete definition of the system. Although the usage of multiple formalisms offers the advantage that different developers can describe the system from different view points, and in languages and models that are specially designed for this purpose, it introduces the problem of fragmentation of information across heterogeneous artefacts in different formats, concepts, and languages. With increasing complexity of the systems, this makes navigation through the system description difficult for developers and other roles in the development process. Furthermore, since the concepts and formalisms are managed independently, they can share semantic overlaps, so that a piece of information about the system under i Abstract development can be expressed in several ways and contexts. For example, while a component model may be used to express the prescriptive software architecture of a system, the implementation in a general-purpose programming language also determines an implicit architecture of the system, which leads to redundancies in the system descriptions. The independent evolution of these artefacts can lead to inconsistencies, which cannot be identified automatically if the semantic correspondances between the artefacts are not modelled explicitly.View-based software development processes offer two fundamental principles of adressing this problem: While synthetic approaches integrate the information of heterogeneous models to form a complete system description, projective approaches introduce a common formalism in which all view points of the system can be represented, and generate the views from this central model. While the pure synthetic approach suffers from a quadratic increase of interdependencies between the view types, which become very numerous with a growing number of formalisms that have to be supported, the projective approach faces the problem of providing a common formalism that is ab...

show abstract

A fundamental approach to model versioning based on graph modifications: from theory to implementation

Cited by 55 publications

References 35 publications

Inconsistency Resolution in Merging Versions of Architectural Models

Inconsistency Resolution in Merging Versions of Architectural Models

Detecting Change Patterns in Aspect Oriented Software Evolution: Rule-based Repository Analysis

Flexible views for view-based model-driven development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About