Metamodel and Constraints Co-evolution: A Semi Automatic Maintenance of OCL Constraints

Khelladi, Djamel Eddine; Hebig, Regina; Bendraou, Reda; Robin, Jacques; Gervais, Marie-Pierre

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-35122-3_22

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This paper extends our previous work [24]. Additional contributions include a more detailed description of all resolutions that we propose, considering the co-evolution of non-impacted constraints, ve additional case studies used to show the feasibility of the approach with various evolution and coevolution scenarios, a prototype that supports OCL co-evolution dened on both the Ecore modeling tool and the UML Class Diagram (CD) Papyrus modeling tool, and a more comprehensive and extensive discussion of our results and the related work.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 89%

A semi-automatic maintenance and co-evolution of OCL constraints with (meta)model evolution

Khelladi

Bendraou

Hebig

et al. 2017

Journal of Systems and Software

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metamodels are core components of modeling languages to dene structural aspects of a business domain. As a complement, OCL constraints are used to specify detailed aspects of the business domain, e.g. more than 750 constraints come with the UML metamodel. As the metamodel evolves, its OCL constraints may need to be co-evolved too. Our systematic analysis shows that semantically dierent resolutions can be applied depending not only on the metamodel changes, but also on the user intent and on the structure of the impacted constraints. In this paper, we rst investigate the syntactical reasons that lead to apply dierent resolutions. We then propose a co-evolution approach that oers alternative resolutions while allowing the user to choose the best applicable one. We evaluated our approach on six case studies of metamodel evolution and their OCL constraints co-evolution. The results show the usefulness of alternative resolutions along with user decision to cope with real co-evolution scenarios. Within our six case studies our approach led to an average of 92% (syntactically) and 93% (semantically) matching co-evolution w.r.t. the user intent.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 89%

A semi-automatic maintenance and co-evolution of OCL constraints with (meta)model evolution

Khelladi

Bendraou

Hebig

et al. 2017

Journal of Systems and Software

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also in our own previous work, we proposed a coevolution approach for OCL constraints with changing metamodels. 29 While there are clear differences to the coevolution of properties with processes, there are also similarities, such as the fact that the change needs to be identified on the mode (graphical notation) and transformed to a change on a textual notation (the constraint or property).…”

Section: Adaptation Of Properties With Changing Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, several works propose to coevolve object constraint language (OCL) constraints in response to the metamodel (ie, grammar) evolution works (eg, previous studies). Also in our own previous work, we proposed a coevolution approach for OCL constraints with changing metamodels …”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coadapting multidimension process properties

Khelladi

Bendraou

Hebig

et al. 2017

J Software Evolu Process

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decades, process verification has been intensively addressed and has become an essential activity to correct and to remove errors before process execution. Typical process verification ecosystems propose to express properties to be verified on the process. A property expresses a desired behavior that must hold or not in the process execution. Processes during their lifespan are continuously adapted for several purposes: enriching, correcting, and refactoring the process. When a process is adapted, the existing properties must naturally be rechecked to ensure that no errors have been introduced, ie, the properties still hold. However, the properties may become outdated and must be coadapted w.r.t. the adapted process before to be rechecked. Otherwise, the verification may raise false alarms or may not detect newly introduced errors. In this paper, we propose a coadaptation approach of properties while considering process adaptation for the different dimensions, namely, control flow, object flow, resources, and timing. We systematically studied process changes in the multiple dimensions to identify those that do impact properties and for which we propose resolution strategies. Our preliminary evaluation shows that our resolutions strategies allow to support users in correctly coadapting impacted properties.

show abstract

“…[3], [10]) depending on the impacting changes that are detected. Therefore, in the current approach when retrieving the changes, all EMF Compare move changes are divided into delete and add changes so that detection tools can afterward detect the correct applied complex changes.…”

Section: A Extending Emf Comparementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Let us have the following OCL constraint (1) that is defined on the class A and uses the property p. Without the intermediate changes, and thus without the detected complex changes, the OCL constraint is deleted by existing approaches [3], [10]. Whereas with the intermediate changes, and thus with the detected complex changes, existing approaches coevolve the OCL constraint from (1) to (2) by extending the navigation path to access the property p in the new location.…”

Section: B Handling the Hidden Change Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a User-Guided Difference-Based Detection of Atomic Changes

Khelladi¹,

Bendraou²,

Gervais³

2016

2016 21st International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Detecting metamodel atomic changes during evolution is prerequisite for co-evolution of models, constraints, and transformations. They are also essential to detect complex changes over the sequence of atomic ones. However when detecting atomic changes with a difference-based technique, the applied order of the atomic changes is not recovered and some hidden changes are undetected. Thus, the quality of the detected atomic change trace is reduced which could be harmful to both coevolution and detection of complex changes. This paper proposes to identify potential hidden changes in order to add them to the trace of atomic changes, and also to order the atomic changes with ordering heuristics. I. INTRODUCTIONModel-Driven Engineering (MDE) has proven to be effective in the development and maintenance of large scale and embedded systems [6]. In MDE, metamodels are core components of a modeling language ecosystem [6]. Metamodels naturally evolve throughout their lifespan which may make the model instances, constraints (e.g. OCL 1 ), and transformation scripts (e.g. ATL 2 or ETL 3 ) inconsistent and invalid. Over the past years a growing interest has emerged for an automatic repair, maintenance, and migration of the impacted metamodel-based artifacts, with the prerequisite of correctly detecting the metamodel changes.Two Therefore, detecting precisely and correctly atomic changes not only helps in better co-evolving the metamodel-based artifacts, but also to correctly detect complex changes that allow increasing and reaching a higher rate of co-evolution in comparison to when atomic changes only are considered during the co-evolution.

show abstract

Metamodel and Constraints Co-evolution: A Semi Automatic Maintenance of OCL Constraints

Cited by 13 publications

References 21 publications

A semi-automatic maintenance and co-evolution of OCL constraints with (meta)model evolution

A semi-automatic maintenance and co-evolution of OCL constraints with (meta)model evolution

Coadapting multidimension process properties

Towards a User-Guided Difference-Based Detection of Atomic Changes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About