2013
DOI: 10.1007/s40568-013-0061-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Model Matching Challenge: Benchmarks for Ecore and BPMN Diagrams

Abstract: In the last couple of years, Model Driven Engineering (MDE) gained a prominent role in the context of software engineering. In the MDE paradigm, models are considered first level artifacts which are iteratively developed by teams of programmers over a period of time. Because of this, dedicated tools for versioning and management of models are needed. A central functionality within this group of tools is model comparison and differencing.In two disjunct research projects, we identified a group of general matchi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite the outstanding advances in software engineering, existing difference-based approaches still have a number of limitations [40] as they lack the capability of providing efficient two-way comparison between the different revisions. Difference engines may make mistakes by displaying false-negative or false-positive correspondences, as we have previously seen it in this paper and as confirmed in [41] . After the customization of difference results and for reusability goals, many works tackled the process of capturing and constructing evolution operators [42][43][44][45][46] .…”
Section: Evolution Operatorssupporting
confidence: 77%
“…Despite the outstanding advances in software engineering, existing difference-based approaches still have a number of limitations [40] as they lack the capability of providing efficient two-way comparison between the different revisions. Difference engines may make mistakes by displaying false-negative or false-positive correspondences, as we have previously seen it in this paper and as confirmed in [41] . After the customization of difference results and for reusability goals, many works tackled the process of capturing and constructing evolution operators [42][43][44][45][46] .…”
Section: Evolution Operatorssupporting
confidence: 77%
“…Pietsch et al [53] present a work where they emphasize the potential importance of semantic algorithms to support BPMN model comparison. They also identify a group of general matching problems (move, rename, etc.…”
Section: Using Model Matching To Implement Service Discoverymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This architecture shows certain extendibility to be proposed in the future but still need to be customized to be applied to several application scenarios according to specific demands. For instance Pietsch et al (2014) recently compared a group of general matching problems. This state-of-the-art comparison algorithms reported low quality results.…”
Section: Model Alignmentmentioning
confidence: 99%