Multi-model consistency preservation

Klare, Heiko

doi:10.1145/3270112.3275335

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Binary Transformations: Although they cannot express all multiary relations, there are arguments in favour of using networks of modular transformations, especially binary ones: They are easier to develop when domain knowledge is distributed [13] and they are easier to comprehend by a single developer [2,30]. Additionally, binary transformations are researched well and a variety of tools supporting different kinds of specifying them exist [27,18,25,21].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unlike using a single, overarching transformation, defining a network makes it possible to reuse modular ones. Additionally, knowledge about consistency between certain types of models is often distributed across domain experts [13]. This can be accommodated by transformation networks, because every domain expert can define transformations independently and according to their view on consistency.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Finding a Universal Execution Strategy for Model Transformation Networks

Gleitze

Klare

Bürger

2021

Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When using multiple models to describe a (software) system, one can use a network of model transformations to keep the models consistent after changes. No strategy exists, however, to orchestrate the execution of transformations if the network has an arbitrary topology. In this paper, we analyse how often and in which order transformations need to be executed. We argue why linear execution bounds are too restrictive to be useful in practice and prove that there is no upper bound for the number of necessary executions. To avoid non-termination, we propose a conservative strategy that makes execution failures easier to understand. These insights help developers and users of transformation networks to understand under which circumstances their networks can terminate. Additionally, the proposed strategy helps them to find the cause when a network cannot restore consistency.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finding a Universal Execution Strategy for Model Transformation Networks

Gleitze

Klare

Bürger

2021

Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We therefore have to assume that global level mistakes are reliably avoided by the developers. Analytic approaches [Kla18] can ensure that specifications at the modularization and operationalization level are free of faults. Nevertheless, the drawback of such an approach is that it works a-posteriori, when transformations are combined to a network.…”

Section: Avoiding Interoperability Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contradictions in binary consistency specifications cannot be avoided by design. However, the structure of the network of specifications influences how prone to mistakes it is [Kla18]. Two extremes of networks are depicted in Figure 6: One is to have a specification for each pair of model types, inducing a dense graph.…”

Section: Contradiction-free Modularizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it requires that such a network structure exists at all, because between three model types there must always be one relation that can be expressed transitively across the other two (cf. [Kla18]). For example, if CS 1,3 in Figure 4 shall be omitted and transitively expressed across CS 1,2 and CS 2,3 , it must hold that:…”

Section: Contradiction-free Modularizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Categorization of Interoperability Issues in Networks of Transformations.

Klare¹,

Syma²,

Bürger³

et al. 2019

JOT

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bidirectional transformations (BX) are a common approach for keeping two types of models consistent, but consistency preservation between more than two types of models is not researched well. One solution is the composition of BX to networks of transformations. Nevertheless, such networks are prone to failures due to interoperability issues between the individual BX, which are independently developed by various experts. We therefore systematically identify and categorize such issues. First, we structure the process of consistency specification into different conceptual levels. Then we develop a catalog of potential mistakes, which we derive from those levels, and consequential failure types. Finally, we discuss strategies to avoid mistakes at the different levels. This catalog is beneficial for transformation developers and transformation language developers. It improves awareness in developers of potential mistakes and consequential failures, enables the development of techniques to avoid specific mistakes by construction, and eases the identification of reasons for failures.

show abstract