Metamodel-based model conformance and multiview consistency checking

Paige, Richard F.; Brooke, Phillip J.; Ostroff, Jonathan S.

doi:10.1145/1243987.1243989

Cited by 100 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Paige et al [30] An approach for metamodeling, model conformance, and multi-view consistency checking, including contracts. They used for this aim the Prototype Verification System (PVS) to check the consistency of the UML models taking into account a trade-off between the completeness and the level of automation of the solution.…”

Section: Pvs Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Inconsistencies in UML Models: A Systematic Literature Review

Allaki¹,

Dahchour²,

En‐Nouaary³

2017

JSW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software systems are often modeled as a set of related UML diagrams. Due to the overlapping multi-view nature of UML and due to the incremental and iterative nature of the used software development process, these diagrams might contain inconsistencies. Thus, it is of utmost importance to detect, analyze and fix these inconsistencies before implementing the system. In this paper, we elaborate a transverse view of the aforementioned activities. More explicitly, this work proposes a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) that evaluates the existing techniques for managing inconsistencies using different research questions. The ultimate objective of this review is to come up with new recommendations that should be taken into consideration when conceiving a new proposal for checking inconsistencies.

show abstract

Section: Pvs Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Inconsistencies in UML Models: A Systematic Literature Review

Allaki¹,

Dahchour²,

En‐Nouaary³

2017

JSW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, each model that fulfils all the rules defined in a metamodel and all of its concepts, conforms to the metamodel [40]. The The relationships between a model with its metamodel and the domain it represents (adapted from [1]).…”

Section: Mde Principles and Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Type Inference in Flexible Model-Driven Engineering

Zolotas

Matragkas

Devlin

et al. 2015

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model-driven Engineering (MDE) is an approach to software development that promises increased productivity and product quality. Domain models that conform to metamodels, both of which are the core artefacts in MDE approaches, are manipulated to perform different development processes using specific MDE tools.However, domain experts, who have detailed domain knowledge, typically lack the technical expertise to transfer this knowledge using MDE tools. Flexible or bottom-up Model-driven Engineering is an emerging approach to domain and systems modelling that tackles this challenge by promoting the use of simple drawing tools to increase the involvement of domain experts in MDE processes. In this approach, no metamodel is created upfront but instead the process starts with the definition of example models that will be used to infer a draft metamodel. When complete knowledge of the domain is acquired, a final metamodel is devised and a transition to traditional MDE approaches is possible. However, the lack of a metamodel that encodes the semantics of conforming models and of tools that impose these semantics bears some drawbacks, among others that of having models with nodes that are unintentionally left untyped. In this thesis we propose the use of approaches that use algorithms from three different research areas, that of classification algorithms, constraint programming and graph similarity to help with the type inference of such untyped nodes. We perform an evaluation of the proposed approaches in a number of randomly generated example models from 10 different domains with results suggesting that the approaches could be used for type inference both in an automatic or a semi-automatic style. 3For my parents Despoina and Michalis

show abstract

“…Most progress has been on the detecting of inconsistencies [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] because an inconsistency is indicative of an incomplete or incorrect change propagation. There also have been attempts in generating fixes for inconsistencies [43], [44], [37] where the "fixes" could be seen analogous to propagated changes.…”

Section: Collaboration Awarenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards collaboration-centric pattern-based software development support

Dorn

Egyed

2013

2013 6th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Software engineering activities tend to be loosely coupled to allow for flexibly reacting to unforeseen development complexity, requirements changes, and progress delays. This flexibility comes a the price of hidden dependencies among design and code artifacts that make it difficult or even impossible to assess change impact. Incorrect change propagation subsequently results in costly errors. This position paper proposes a novel approach based on monitoring engineering activities for subsequent high-level pattern detection. Patterns of (i) collaboration structures, (ii) temporal action sequences, and (iii) artifact consistency constraints serve as input to recommendation and automatic reconfiguration algorithms for ultimately avoiding and correcting artifact inconsistencies.

show abstract

Metamodel-based model conformance and multiview consistency checking

Cited by 100 publications

References 23 publications

Managing Inconsistencies in UML Models: A Systematic Literature Review

Managing Inconsistencies in UML Models: A Systematic Literature Review

Type Inference in Flexible Model-Driven Engineering

Towards collaboration-centric pattern-based software development support

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About