A Formalism for Specifying Model Merging Conflicts

Abstract

Verifying the consistency of model merging is an important step towards the support for team collaboration in software modeling and evolution. Since merging conflicts are inevitable, this has triggered intensive research on conflict management in different domains. Despite these efforts, techniques for high-level conflict representation have hardly been investigated yet. In this paper, we propose an approach to specify model merging conflicts. This approach includes the Conflict Pattern Language (CPL), a formalism for specifying conflicts in different modeling languages. CPL is based on the OCL grammar and is tooled by an editor and a parser. CPL facilitates the slow and error-prone task of specifying model merging conflicts and can be used to specify conflicts in any EMF-based model. We evaluated our approach with a case study, including five different conflict cases. The results are promising about how CPL can be used for specifying syntactic and semantic conflicts. CCS CONCEPTS• Software and its engineering → Specification languages; Formal language definitions.

Automatic resolution of model merging conflicts using quality-based reinforcement learning

“…In the Modeling Module of this workflow, we use the Conflict Pattern Language (CPL) [9] to support Conflict Specification. We also compare input models using the Epsilon Comparison Language (ECL) [20] to identify change operations in the Change Calculation function.…”

“…Then they can define the appropriate resolution patterns according to the specified elements. We follow the structure of the CPL template [9] to specify a conflict situation that enables us to detect conflict for any instance of different modeling language concepts. In the first scenario, we have a pattern repository that can contains possible resolution patterns for the well-known conflicts in a modeling language.…”

“…Some others avoid conflicts using mechanisms that provide synchronous model updates and inform the user about conflicting situations for concurrent modifications (e. g., [8]). Few approaches propose conflict specification techniques such as formal specification pattern (e. g., [9]) or conflict model (e. g., [10]) to describe conflict situation in a high-level representation. Other approaches focus on conflict resolution techniques, such as operational transformation (e. g., [11]), and try to automate the reconciliation phase as much as possible.…”

Conflict management techniques for model merging: a systematic mapping review

“…Indeed, the integration of concurrent changes may result in a syntactically correct merged version, yet semantically invalid [23]. For example, the equivalent associations [112] is a semantic conflict that arises when two modelers use different ways to model the parent relationship for the class Person in a UML class diagram. The first modeler adds one association with role name parents to express the fact that a Person has two parents.…”

“…In this study, our definition of conflict management approach in model merging is (i) a technique that tries to prevent conflicts and build a consistent and integrated model by warning collaborators from discordant changes or (ii) a mechanism that helps users describe a conflictual situation to detect and resolve inconsistencies and conflicts during the merge process. Several researchers [47,48,49,112] have addressed conflict management activities where each approach focused on one or more aspects. This variety of approaches may indicate that each conflict management activity can be carried out in different ways.…”