Detection and resolution of conflicting change operations in version management of process models

Gerth, Christian; Küster, Jochen M.; Luckey, Markus; Engels, Gregor

doi:10.1007/s10270-011-0226-8

Cited by 19 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gerth et al [38] represent a method for identifying semantic and syntactic conflicts in model versioning scenarios. For this purpose they use process model terms to capture the execution order of the elements in a process model and three-way merge.…”

Section: B Model Co-evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Reference Architecture for the Co-evolution of Business Processes

Mafazi

Großmann

Mayer

et al. 2014

2014 IEEE 18th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops and Demonstrations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In large organisations different stakeholders are usually responsible for the management of business processes. This paper addresses the situation where multiple stakeholders with different interests are handling parts of the same business processes. One technique to support this are process views where each stakeholder holds a personal view which can be executed or changed. In this paper we investigated the requirements on view management for the co-evolution of business processes. A literature review revealed that there is no approach that can support all requirements. We therefore propose an architecture which can overcome existing gaps.

show abstract

Section: B Model Co-evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Reference Architecture for the Co-evolution of Business Processes

Mafazi

Großmann

Mayer

et al. 2014

2014 IEEE 18th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops and Demonstrations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We denote the application of change operations (according to their given order) using the operator ⊕ : M × ℘(C) M, e.g., m 1 ⊕ ∆(m 1 , m 2 ) = m 2 . The operator is partial because some applications of change operations are not possible due to application dependencies [11], [27] or their application does not produce well-formed models in M. To denote that the application of change operations C ⊆ ∆ to a model m ∈ M leads to a well-formed model we write m ⊕ C ∈ M. Semantic Difference. The semantic difference of two models m 1 , m 2 ∈ M is a set of diff witnesses in the semantic domain S. Diff witnesses are elements added to the semantics of the model between the two versions.…”

Section: Preliminariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework for relating syntactic and semantic model differences

Maoz

Ringert

2016

Softw Syst Model

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model differencing is an important activity in model-based development processes. Differences need to be detected, analyzed, and understood to evolve systems and explore alternatives.Two distinct approaches have been studied in the literature: syntactic differencing, which compares the concrete or abstract syntax of models, and semantic differencing, which compares models in terms of their meaning. Syntactic differencing identifies change operations that transform the syntactical representation of one model to the syntactical representation of the other. However, it does not explain their impact on the meaning of the model. Semantic model differencing is independent of syntactic changes and presents differences as elements in the semantics of one model but not the other. However, it does not reveal the syntactic changes causing these semantic differences.We define a language independent, abstract framework, which relates syntactic change operations and semantic difference witnesses. We formalize fundamental relations of necessary and sufficient sets of change operations and analyze their properties. We further demonstrate concrete instances of the framework for three different popular modeling languages, namely, class diagrams, activity diagrams, and feature models. The framework provides a novel foundation for combining syntactic and semantic differencing.

show abstract

“…Since the merge is performed on the metamodel level to keep the approach generic, the information available within the model cannot be used for merging. Gerth et al [16] provide dedicated merge support for business process models ensuring a consistent outcome. They formalize process models as process terms and utilize a term rewriting system to detect and interactively resolve merge conflicts.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guided Merging of Sequence Diagrams

Widl

Biere

Brosch

et al. 2013

Software Language Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The employment of optimistic model versioning systems allows multiple developers of a team to work independently on their local copies of a software model. The merging process towards one consolidated version obviously turns out to be challenging when performed without any tool support. Recently, several sophisticated approaches for model merging have been presented. However, even for multi-view modeling languages like UML, which distribute the information on the system under development over different diagrams, diagrams of different views are merged independently of each other. Hence, inconsistencies between different views are likely to be introduced into the merged model. We suggest to solve this problem by exploiting information stored in one view as constraint for the computation of a consolidated version of another view. More specifically, we demonstrate how state machines can guide the integration of parallel changes performed on a sequence diagram. We give a concise formal description of this problem and suggest a translation to propositional logic.

show abstract

Detection and resolution of conflicting change operations in version management of process models

Cited by 19 publications

References 24 publications

Towards a Reference Architecture for the Co-evolution of Business Processes

Towards a Reference Architecture for the Co-evolution of Business Processes

A framework for relating syntactic and semantic model differences

Guided Merging of Sequence Diagrams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About