Knowledge base approach to consistency management of UML specifications

Zisman, Andrea; Kozlenkov, Alexander

doi:10.1109/ase.2001.989829

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the domain of software modelling, Andrea et al discuss in [Zisman and Kozlenkov 2001] a mechanism for checking inconsistencies in UML specifications. Mapping UML specifications in XMI format, they use abduction for declaring as consistency properties certain goals that should succeed following a particular course of events.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis and semi-automatic correction of detected design inconsistencies in source code

Castro

Brichau

Mens

2009

Proceedings of the International Workshop on Smalltalk Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to alleviate design decay, different program design documentation techniques are used for the specification and detection of design inconsistencies in code. However, these design documentation techniques do not always provide support for the diagnosis and (semi-) automatic correction of such inconsistencies. In case they do, corrective solutions are typically targeted to a reduced set of pre-defined inconsistency problems, and they are not easily customizable to new kinds of consistency checks defined by a user. In particular, they cannot infer possible corrective actions to solve new user-defined inconsistency problems. In this paper, we present a technique for the diagnosis and (semi-) automatic correction of inconsistencies in the context of an existing tool for inconsistency management: IntensiVE. Our technique uses logic abductive reasoning to infer solutions to detected user-defined inconsistencies, starting from basic composable corrective actions. A first prototype implementing our technique on top of IntensiVE is shown.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis and semi-automatic correction of detected design inconsistencies in source code

Castro

Brichau

Mens

2009

Proceedings of the International Workshop on Smalltalk Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Campbell et al [11] use a model checker to evaluate inconsistencies within and across UML diagrams. Zisman and Kozlenkov [36] use a knowledge base and express consistency rules using patterns and axioms.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible and scalable consistency checking on product line variability models

Vierhauser

Grünbacher

Egyed

et al. 2010

Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The complexity of product line variability models makes it hard to maintain their consistency over time regardless of the modeling approach used. Engineers thus need support for detecting and resolving inconsistencies. We describe experiences of applying a tool-supported approach for incremental consistency checking on variability models. Our approach significantly improves the overall performance and scalability compared to batch-oriented techniques and allows providing immediate feedback to modelers. It is extensible as new consistency constraints can easily be added. Furthermore, the approach is flexible as it is not limited to variability models and it also checks the consistency of the models with the underlying code base of the product line. We report the results of a thorough evaluation based on real-world product line models and discuss lessons learned.

show abstract

“…In the domain of software modeling, Zisman et al discuss in [53] a mechanism for checking inconsistencies between UML specifications. Mapping related UML specifications in XMI format, the work uses abduction for declaring as consistency properties certain goals that should succeed following a particular course of events.…”

Section: Abductive Reasoning In Software Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosing and correcting design inconsistencies in source code with logical abduction

Castro

Roover

Kellens

et al. 2011

Science of Computer Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Correcting design decay in source code is not a trivial task. Diagnosing and subsequently correcting inconsistencies between a software systems's code and its design rules (e.g., database queries are only allowed in the persistence layer) and coding conventions can be complex, time-consuming and error-prone. Providing support for this process is therefore highly desirable, but of a far greater complexity than suggesting basic corrective actions for simplistic implementation problems (like the "declare a local variable for non-declared variable" suggested by Eclipse). We present an abductive reasoning approach to inconsistency correction that consists of (1) a means for developers to document and verify a system's design and coding rules, (2) an abductive logic reasoner that hypothesizes possible causes of inconsistencies between the system's code and the documented rules and (3) a library of corrective actions for each hypothesized cause. This work builds on our previous work, where we expressed design rules as equality relationships between sets of source code artifacts (e.g., the set of methods in the persistence layer is the same as the set of methods that query the database). In this paper, we generalize our approach to design rules expressed as user-defined binary relationships between two sets of source code artifacts (e.g., every state changing method should invoke a persistence method). We illustrate our approach on the design of IntensiVE, a tool suite that enables defining sets of source code artifacts intensionally (by means of logic queries) and verifying relationships between such sets.

show abstract

Knowledge base approach to consistency management of UML specifications

Cited by 18 publications

References 7 publications

Diagnosis and semi-automatic correction of detected design inconsistencies in source code

Diagnosis and semi-automatic correction of detected design inconsistencies in source code

Flexible and scalable consistency checking on product line variability models

Diagnosing and correcting design inconsistencies in source code with logical abduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About