Your browser does not support JavaScript!
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

MCTest: towards an improvement of match algorithms for models

MCTest: towards an improvement of match algorithms for models

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
£12.50
(plus tax if applicable)
Add to cart
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for £75.00
(plus taxes if applicable)
Add to cart

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Name:*
Email:*
Your details
Name:*
Email:*
Department:*
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
 
 
 
 
 
IET Software — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology
Published

Owing to the increasing importance of model-driven engineering (MDE) and the changes experienced by software systems over their life cycle, the calculation, representation and visualisation of matches and differences between two different versions of the same model are becoming more necessary and useful. This study shows the need for improvement in the algorithms for calculating the relationships between models and presents a tool to test different implementations, thus reducing the effort required to measure, compare or create new algorithms. To demonstrate the need for improvement and the framework developed, the authors have created different models that conform to the metamodel of a domain-specific language. Subsequently, the authors compared these models using the algorithms of the eclipse modelling framework (EMF) Compare tool, part of the eclipse modeling project, which is the framework of reference for MDE. Thus, in the case study, the authors tool is used to measure the quality of the comparisons performed by EMF Compare.

Inspec keywords: data visualisation; software engineering; data structures; specification languages

Other keywords: MCTest; eclipse modelling framework; match calculation; EMF Compare tool; software system; model-driven engineering; match visualisation; match algorithm; match representation

Subjects: Graphics techniques; Software engineering techniques

References

    1. 1)
    2. 2)
      • Ledeczi, A., Maroti, M., Bakay, A.: `The generic modeling environment', Workshop on Intelligent Signal Processing, 2001, Budapest, Hungary, 17.
    3. 3)
      • D. Steinberg , F. Budinsky , M. Paternostro , E. Merks . (2009) EMF: eclipse modeling framework 2.0.
    4. 4)
      • Hunt, J.W., Mcllroy, M.D.: `An algorithm for differential file comparison', Computing Science Technical Report No. 41,, 1977.
    5. 5)
      • P. Farail , P. Gaufillet , A. Canals . (2006) The TOPCASED project: a toolkit in OPen source for Critical Aeronautic SystEms Design.
    6. 6)
      • R.C. Gronback . (2009) Eclipse modeling project: a domain-specific language toolkit: a Domain-Specific Language (DSL) toolkit.
    7. 7)
      • Gronback, R.C.: `Eclipse modeling project and OMG standard', Eclipse Modeling Symp., 2006.
    8. 8)
      • Cobena, G., Abiteboul, S., Marian, A.: `Detecting changes in XML documents', ICDE, 2001, p. 41–52.
    9. 9)
      • Kolovos, D.S., Di Ruscio, D., Pierantonio, A., Paige, R.F.: `Different models for model matching: an analysis of approaches to support model differencing', CVSM ’09: Proc. 2009 ICSE Workshop on Comparison and Versioning of Software Models, 2009, p. 1–6.
    10. 10)
      • Selonen, P.: `A review of UML model comparison approaches', Proc. Nordic Workshop on Model Driven Engineering, 2007.
    11. 11)
      • Mandelin, D., Kimelman, D., Yellin, D.: `A Bayesian approach to diagram matching with application to architectural models', ICSE ’06: Proc. 28th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, 2006, p. 222–231.
    12. 12)
      • K. Beck . Simple smalltalk testing: with patterns. Smalltalk Rep. , 2 , 16 - 18
    13. 13)
      • E. Gamma , R. Helm , R. Johnson , J.M. Vlissides . (1994) Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software.
    14. 14)
    15. 15)
    16. 16)
      • Alanen, M., Porres, I.: `Difference and union of models', Proc. UML 2003, 2003, p. 2–17.
    17. 17)
      • C. Fellbaum . (1998) WordNet. An electronic lexical database.
    18. 18)
    19. 19)
      • Melnik, S., Garcia-molina, H., Rahm, E.: `Similarity flooding: a versatile graph matching algorithm', 18thInt. Conf. on Data Engineering, 2002, p. 117–128.
    20. 20)
      • Ohst, D., Welle, M., Kelter, U.: `Differences between versions of UML diagrams', ESEC/FSE, 2003, 28, p. 227–236.
    21. 21)
      • Selonen, P., Kettunen, M.: `Metamodel-based inference of inter-model correspondence', CSMR ’07: Proc. 11th European Conf. on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, 2007, p. 71–80.
    22. 22)
      • Treude, C., Berlik, S., Wenzel, S., Kelter, U.: `Difference computation of large models', ESEC-FSE ’07: Proc. Sixth Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conf. and the ACM SIGSOFT Symp. Foundations of Software Engineering, 2007, p. 295–304.
    23. 23)
      • W. Wang . (2005) Evaluation of UML model transformation tools.
    24. 24)
      • J. Bézivin . (2005) On the unification power of models, ‘Software and system modeling’.
    25. 25)
      • Rivera, J.E., Vallecillo, A.: `Representing and operating with model differences', TOOLS EUROPE 2008, 2008, (LNBIP, 11), p. 141–160, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69824-1_9.
    26. 26)
      • D.C. Howe . A WordNet library for Java/Processing.
    27. 27)
      • D. Frankel . (2003) Model driven architecture: applying MDA to enterprise computing.
    28. 28)
      • J. Miller , J. Mukerji , M. Belaunde . (2003) MDA guide, v1.0.1.
    29. 29)
    30. 30)
    31. 31)
      • Kent, S.: `Model driven engineering', IFM ’02: Proc. Third Int. Conf. on Integrated Formal Methods, 2002, p. 286–298.
    32. 32)
    33. 33)
      • H.L.R. Oliveira , L.G.P. Murta , C. Werner . (2005) Odyssey-VCS: a flexible version control system for UML model elements, Proc. 12th Int. Workshop on Software Configuration Management.
    34. 34)
      • S. Efftinge , M. Völter . oAW xText: a framework for textual DSLs.
    35. 35)
      • A. Toulmé . Presentation of EMF compare utility.
    36. 36)
      • Xing, Z., Stroulia, E.: `UMLDiff: an algorithm for object-oriented design differencing', ASE '05: Proc. 20th IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. on Automated Software Engineering, 2005, p. 54–65.
    37. 37)
      • (2005) Meta object facility 2.0.
    38. 38)
      • Gruschko, B., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F.: `Towards synchronizing models with evolving metamodels', Proc. Int. Workshop on Model-Driven Software Evolution Held with the ECSMR, 2007.
    39. 39)
      • Reddy, R., France, R.: `Model composition – a signature-based approach', Aspect Oriented Modeling (AOM) Workshop, 2005, Montego.
    40. 40)
      • (2005) Ontology definition metamodel.
    41. 41)
    42. 42)
      • Y. Lin , J. Zhang , J. Gray . (2004) Model comparison: a key challenge for transformation testing and version control in model driven software development, ‘Control in model driven software development. OOPSLA/GPCE: best practices for model-driven software development’.
    43. 43)
      • Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S., Zave, P.: `Matching and merging of statecharts specifications', ‘ICSE '07: Proc. 29th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, 2007, p. 54–64.
    44. 44)
      • C. Brun , A. Pierantonio . Model differences in the eclipse modeling framework. UPGRADE, Eur. J. Inf. Prof. , 2 , 29 - 34
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-sen.2011.0040
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-sen.2011.0040
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
Print this page
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address