Classifying Approaches for Constructing Single Underlying Models

Model-driven engineering can be used to create problem-specific, conceptual models abstracting away unwanted details. Models at runtime take this principle to the time a system is running. Connecting and synchronizing multiple models creates several problems. Usually, models used at runtime must communicate with other systems over the network, they are often based on different paradigms, and in most settings a fast and reactive behaviour is required. We aim for a structured way to define and organize such connections in order to minimize development cost, network usage and computation effort while maximizing interoperability. In order to achieve those goals, we present an extension of the paradigm of models based on reference attribute grammars by creating a dedicated problem-specific language for those connections. We show how to connect several runtime models to a robotic system in order to control this robot and to provide guarantees for safe coexistence with nearby humans. We show, that using our approach, connections can be specified more concisely while maintaining the same efficiency as handwritten code. CCS CONCEPTS • Software and its engineering → Publish-subscribe / event-based architectures; Model-driven software engineering; Interoperability; Domain specific languages; • Theory of computation → Grammars and context-free languages; • Computer systems organization → External interfaces for robotics.

show abstract

“…Unlike other model synchronization approaches [27], we focus on low-level connection endpoint definitions based on messages.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Connecting conceptual models using relational reference attribute grammars

Schöne

Mey

Ebert

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 23rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion Proceedi

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a wide variety of many different model-view approaches (Brunelière et al 2018) and multi-view modeling approaches (Cicchetti et al 2019;Meier, Werner, et al 2020). Meier, Kateule, & Winter (2020) introduce an approach to define viewpoints and views via reusable and generic operators, thus splitting the model-view transformation into parts.…”

Section: Model-view Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Model Differencing for the Consistency Preservation of State-based Views.

Wittler¹,

Saglam²,

Kühn³

2023

JOT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While developers and users of modern software systems usually only need to interact with a specific part of the system at a time, they are hindered by the ever-increasing complexity of the entire system. Views are projections of underlying models and can be employed to abstract from that complexity. When a view is modified, the changes must be propagated back into the underlying model without overriding simultaneous modifications. Hence, the view needs to provide a fine-grained sequence of changes to update the model minimally invasively. Such fine-grained changes are often unavailable for views that integrate with existing workflows and tools. To this end, model differencing approaches can be leveraged to compare two states of a view and derive an estimated change sequence. However, these model differencing approaches are not intended to operate with views, as their correctness is judged solely by comparing the input models. For views, the changes are derived from the view states, but the correctness depends on the underlying model. This work introduces a refined notion of correctness for change sequences in the context of model-view consistency. Furthermore, we evaluate state-of-the-art model differencing regarding model-view consistency. Our results show that model differencing largely performs very well. However, incorrect change sequences were derived for two common refactoring operation types, leading to an incorrect model state. These types can be easily reproduced and are likely to occur in practice. By considering our change sequence properties in the view type design, incorrect change sequences can be detected and semi-automatically repaired to prevent such incorrect model states.

show abstract

“…Single-underlying models [16] combine multiple models into one single source of truth, thus enabling both multi-model consistency preservation and multi-view modeling. Meier, Werner, Klare, et al [20] compare different SUM-based approaches, examples are VITRUVIUS [21] and NAOMI [25]. We use the former for our approach.…”

Section: B Co-evolution Of Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To realize model-view consistency, we need explicit support for view definitions. There are multiple view-based approaches for consistency preservation that thus both allow multi-model co-evolution and view definition [20]. In the following, we propose our envisioned approach for the integration of external tools through external views.…”

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards the Co-Evolution of Models and Artefacts of Industrial Tools Through External Views

Saglam

Kühn

2021

2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion (MODELS-C)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern software systems comprise multiple models. When these models are changed, interdependent models must be evolved accordingly. Manually managing this co-evolution of models is tedious and error-prone. Moreover, other interdependent artefacts, such as persisted states of industrial software applications, must co-evolve accordingly. Automated consistency preservation allows for efficiently managing the co-evolution of models. However, while state-of-the-art approaches operate delta-based, typical software applications persist changes statebased without conforming to explicit metamodels. Additionally, software applications may persist changes infrequently, even though interdependent models might be concurrently modified. As such, current approaches are insufficient for artefacts of industrial tools. To address these issues, we propose an approach for the co-evolution of models and artefacts of industrial tools by treating these artefacts as external views on the models.

show abstract

Classifying Approaches for Constructing Single Underlying Models

Cited by 6 publications

References 22 publications

Connecting conceptual models using relational reference attribute grammars

Connecting conceptual models using relational reference attribute grammars

Evaluating Model Differencing for the Consistency Preservation of State-based Views.

Towards the Co-Evolution of Models and Artefacts of Industrial Tools Through External Views

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About