Towards an expressivity benchmark for mappings based on a systematic classification of heterogeneities

Wimmer, Manuel; Kappel, Gerti; Kusel, Angelika; Retschitzegger, Werner; Schoenboeck, Johannes; Schwinger, Wieland

doi:10.1145/1866272.1866278

Cited by 18 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Then, we discuss the results of our study not only from a syntactic perspective, but also from a semantic one. The rationale behind this two-step approach is that even though a syntactical matching process for comparing the profiles provides already valuable results, some interesting correspondences may still be uncovered because of potential syntactical and structural heterogeneities [46] between the compared profiles and the conservative matching strategy applied for the syntactical comparison.…”

Section: Rq2: How Is the Quality Of Uml Profiles Automatically Generamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, it may be possible that we missed correspondences between elements of the profiles involved in the study. Several kinds of heterogeneities [46] exist that are real challenges 565 for model matching algorithms and, thus, may affect the results of our study. However, by applying a two-step matching process which includes a syntactic as well as semantic comparison phase, we tried to minimize the possibility of missing correspondences as a result of different naming conventions and modeling styles.…”

Section: ---------------mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

JUMP—From Java Annotations to UML Profiles

Bergmayr

Grossniklaus

Wimmer

et al. 2014

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The capability of UML profiles to serve as annotation mechanism has been recognized in both industry and research. Today's modeling tools offer profiles specific to platforms, such as Java, as they facilitate model-based engineering approaches. However, the set of available profiles is considerably smaller compared to the number of existing Java libraries using annotations. This is because an effective mapping between Java and UML to generate profiles from annotation-based libraries is missing. In this paper, we present JUMP to overcome this limitation, thereby continuing existing mapping efforts by emphasizing on annotations and profiles. We demonstrate the practical value of JUMP by contributing profiles that facilitate reverse-engineering and forward-engineering scenarios for the Java platform. The evaluation of JUMP shows that profiles can be automatically generated from Java libraries exhibiting equal or even improved quality compared to profiles currently used in practice.

show abstract

Section: Rq2: How Is the Quality Of Uml Profiles Automatically Generamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: ---------------mentioning

confidence: 99%

JUMP—From Java Annotations to UML Profiles

Bergmayr

Grossniklaus

Wimmer

et al. 2014

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We classified the model changes referred to by the questions according to Wimmer et al [30]. On the one hand, solutions to the questions required changes to existing modeling concepts: attributes (context, multiplicity, datatype), references (context, multiplicity, direction, containment), and inheritance relationships (concreteness, depth, inheritance type).…”

Section: Experimental Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Three Notations for Defining Scenario-Based Model Tests: A Controlled Experiment

Hoisl

Sobernig

Strembeck

2014

2014 9th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Scenarios are an established means to specify requirements for software systems. Scenario-based tests allow for validating software models against such requirements. In this paper, we consider three alternative notations to define such scenario tests on structural models: a semi-structured natural-language notation, a diagrammatic notation, and a fully-structured textual notation. In particular, we performed a study to understand how these three notations compare to each other with respect to accuracy and effort of comprehending scenario-test definitions, as well as with respect to the detection of errors in the models under test. 20 software professionals (software engineers, testers, researchers) participated in a controlled experiment based on six different comprehension and maintenance tasks. For each of these tasks, questions on a scenario-test definition and on a model under test had to be answered. In an ex-post questionnaire, the participants rated each notation on a number of dimensions (e.g., practicality or scalability). Our results show that the choice of a specific scenario-test notation can affect the productivity (in terms of correctness and time-effort) when testing software models for requirements conformance. In particular, the participants of our study spent comparatively less time and completed the tasks more accurately when using the natural-language notation compared to the other two notations. Moreover, the participants of our study explicitly expressed their preference for the natural-language notation.

show abstract

“…In order to solve this heterogeneity, we define a binding adapter for each association (lines 13 and 15-17). These adapters make use of helpers factoring common code, which are also specified with our concrete syntax (flattened helpers in lines [19][20] Altogether this case study shows the feasibility of our approach, but two issues are worth noting. First, computing the flow graph of an imperative program is a non-trivial transformation, and therefore we do not want to implement it for each possible procedural language.…”

Section: Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reusable transformations must be completely developed using MOPs, while we permit using a regular transformation language. The same authors present in [20] a categorization of common heterogeneities, which we solve through adapters and cardinality in concepts.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generic Model Transformations: Write Once, Reuse Everywhere

Cuadrado

Guerra

Lara

2011

Theory and Practice of Model Transformations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Esta es la versión de autor de la comunicación de congreso publicada en: This is an author produced version of a paper published in: Taking inspiration from generic programming, in this paper we define model transformation templates. These templates are defined over metamodel concepts which later can be bound to specific meta-models. The binding mechanism is flexible as it permits mapping concepts and metamodels with certain kinds of structural heterogeneities. The approach is general and can be applied to any model transformation language. In this paper we report on its application to ATL.

show abstract

Towards an expressivity benchmark for mappings based on a systematic classification of heterogeneities

Cited by 18 publications

References 13 publications

JUMP—From Java Annotations to UML Profiles

JUMP—From Java Annotations to UML Profiles

Comparing Three Notations for Defining Scenario-Based Model Tests: A Controlled Experiment

Generic Model Transformations: Write Once, Reuse Everywhere

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About