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)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for £75.00
(plus taxes if applicable)

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.

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.

References

    1. 1)
      • Kent, S.: `Model driven engineering', IFM ’02: Proc. Third Int. Conf. on Integrated Formal Methods, 2002, p. 286–298.
    2. 2)
      • J. Bézivin . (2005) On the unification power of models, ‘Software and system modeling’.
    3. 3)
      • D. Frankel . (2003) Model driven architecture: applying MDA to enterprise computing.
    4. 4)
      • J. Miller , J. Mukerji , M. Belaunde . (2003) MDA guide, v1.0.1.
    5. 5)
      • 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.
    6. 6)
      • 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.
    7. 7)
      • 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’.
    8. 8)
      • 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.
    9. 9)
      • 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.
    10. 10)
    11. 11)
      • Alanen, M., Porres, I.: `Difference and union of models', Proc. UML 2003, 2003, p. 2–17.
    12. 12)
      • C. Brun , A. Pierantonio . Model differences in the eclipse modeling framework. UPGRADE, Eur. J. Inf. Prof. , 2 , 29 - 34
    13. 13)
      • 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.
    14. 14)
      • Hunt, J.W., Mcllroy, M.D.: `An algorithm for differential file comparison', Computing Science Technical Report No. 41,, 1977.
    15. 15)
    16. 16)
    17. 17)
      • P. Farail , P. Gaufillet , A. Canals . (2006) The TOPCASED project: a toolkit in OPen source for Critical Aeronautic SystEms Design.
    18. 18)
      • Reddy, R., France, R.: `Model composition – a signature-based approach', Aspect Oriented Modeling (AOM) Workshop, 2005, Montego.
    19. 19)
    20. 20)
      • Cobena, G., Abiteboul, S., Marian, A.: `Detecting changes in XML documents', ICDE, 2001, p. 41–52.
    21. 21)
    22. 22)
      • W. Wang . (2005) Evaluation of UML model transformation tools.
    23. 23)
    24. 24)
      • Ohst, D., Welle, M., Kelter, U.: `Differences between versions of UML diagrams', ESEC/FSE, 2003, 28, p. 227–236.
    25. 25)
      • Selonen, P.: `A review of UML model comparison approaches', Proc. Nordic Workshop on Model Driven Engineering, 2007.
    26. 26)
      • (2005) Ontology definition metamodel.
    27. 27)
    28. 28)
      • Ledeczi, A., Maroti, M., Bakay, A.: `The generic modeling environment', Workshop on Intelligent Signal Processing, 2001, Budapest, Hungary, 17.
    29. 29)
      • Melnik, S., Garcia-molina, H., Rahm, E.: `Similarity flooding: a versatile graph matching algorithm', 18thInt. Conf. on Data Engineering, 2002, p. 117–128.
    30. 30)
      • 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.
    31. 31)
      • 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.
    32. 32)
      • 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.
    33. 33)
      • R.C. Gronback . (2009) Eclipse modeling project: a domain-specific language toolkit: a Domain-Specific Language (DSL) toolkit.
    34. 34)
      • Gronback, R.C.: `Eclipse modeling project and OMG standard', Eclipse Modeling Symp., 2006.
    35. 35)
      • (2005) Meta object facility 2.0.
    36. 36)
      • 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.
    37. 37)
      • D. Steinberg , F. Budinsky , M. Paternostro , E. Merks . (2009) EMF: eclipse modeling framework 2.0.
    38. 38)
      • A. Toulmé . Presentation of EMF compare utility.
    39. 39)
      • S. Efftinge , M. Völter . oAW xText: a framework for textual DSLs.
    40. 40)
      • D.C. Howe . A WordNet library for Java/Processing.
    41. 41)
      • C. Fellbaum . (1998) WordNet. An electronic lexical database.
    42. 42)
      • K. Beck . Simple smalltalk testing: with patterns. Smalltalk Rep. , 2 , 16 - 18
    43. 43)
    44. 44)
      • E. Gamma , R. Helm , R. Johnson , J.M. Vlissides . (1994) Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software.
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
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address