Representing and Operating with Model Differences

Rivera, José Eduardo; Vallecillo, Antonio

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69824-1_9

Cited by 33 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is important to notice that there exist additional techniques based on a metamodel tailored representation of differences allowing for a more general co-evolution support (though not automated), including transformations and editing tools [DIP11]. Nonetheless, an alternative approach could have been the adoption of a metamodel agnostic differences detection and representation, as adopted in model comparison (e.g., [LGJ07,Tou]) and model differences representation (e.g., [RV08]). Despite such approaches would have avoided the issue of merging metamodels, (meta)model versioning would have resulted less efficient and accurate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Solution for Concurrent Versioning of Metamodels and Models.

Cicchetti¹,

Ciccozzi²,

Leveque³

2012

JOT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model-Driven Engineering has been widely recognised as a powerful paradigm for shifting the focus of software development from coding to modelling in order to cope with the rising complexity of modern systems. Models become the main artefacts in the development process and therefore undergo evolutions performed in different ways until the final implementation is produced. Moreover, modelling languages are expected to evolve too and such evolutions have to be taken into account when dealing with model versioning. Since consistency between models and related metamodels is one of the pillars on which model-driven engineering relies, evolution of models and metamodels cannot be considered as independent events in a model versioning system. This article exploits model comparison and merging mechanisms to provide a solution to the issues related to model versioning when considering metamodel and model manipulations as concurrent and even misaligned. A scenario-based description of the challenges arising from versioning of models is given and a running example is exploited to demonstrate the proposed solutions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Solution for Concurrent Versioning of Metamodels and Models.

Cicchetti¹,

Ciccozzi²,

Leveque³

2012

JOT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the first phase, fine-grained changes are computed based on object identifier equivalences. For this phase, we build on our previous work presented in [30]. In the second phase, the fine-grained changes are analyzed to find coarse-grained changes between the two model versions.…”

Section: Change Detection: From Fine-to Coarse-grained Changesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If such a pair is found, a match object is created which links the two objects. Of course, more sophisticated match rules based on name and structure similarities may be applied [30].…”

Section: Phase 1: Detecting Fine-grained Changesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Viewpoint Co-evolution through Coarse-Grained Changes and Coupled Transformations

Wimmer

Moreno

Vallecillo

2012

Objects, Models, Components, Patterns

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Multi-viewpoint modeling is an effective technique to deal with the ever-growing complexity of large-scale systems. The evolution of multi-viewpoint system specifications is currently accomplished in terms of fine-grained atomic changes. Apart from being a very low-level and cumbersome strategy, it is also quite unnatural to system modelers, who think of model evolution in terms of coarse-grained high-level changes. In order to bridge this gap, we propose an approach to formally express and manipulate viewpoint changes in a high-level fashion, by structuring atomic changes into coarse-grained composite ones. These can also be used to formally define reconciling operations to adapt dependent views, using coupled transformations. We introduce a modeling language based on graph transformations and Maude for expressing both, the coarse-grained changes and the coupled transformations that propagate them to reestablish global consistency. We demonstrate the applicability of the approach by its application in the context of RM-ODP.

show abstract

“…Rivera und Vallecillo proposed an approach [1] similar to [2]. They do not change the meta-model of the models, but classify the changes in the same way.…”

Section: State-of-the-artmentioning

confidence: 99%

Representation of model differences

Schmidt¹,

Kehrer²,

Kelter³

et al. 2012

Softwaretechnik-Trends

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model-driven development requires a full set of development tools. While approaches and tools for constructing most aspects of model driven tool chains are readily available, there is a lack of tools and well evaluated approaches which compute and/or processes model differences. Difference tools for models must be adapted to different types of models, usecases and application contexts. So the tools and approaches must be realized every time completely anew according different algorithms and functions. As a possible solution, we propose a common difference representation and data exchange format as a foundation to integrate and evaluate individual activities. Thus we propose to analyze common and individual requirements and discuss issues of the state-ofthe-art difference representation. With this we can support future collaborations of researchers, integrate approaches, and enhance interoperability leading to more efficient research.

show abstract

Representing and Operating with Model Differences

Cited by 33 publications

References 14 publications

A Solution for Concurrent Versioning of Metamodels and Models.

A Solution for Concurrent Versioning of Metamodels and Models.

Viewpoint Co-evolution through Coarse-Grained Changes and Coupled Transformations

Representation of model differences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About