A relationship-driven approach to view merging

ABSTRACT

A key problem in view-based software development is merging a set of disparate views into a single seamless view. To merge a set of views, we need to know how they are related. In this extended abstract, we discuss the methodological aspects of describing the relationships between views. We argue that view relationships should be treated as first-class artifacts in the merge problem and propose a general approach to view merging based on this argument. We illustrate the usefulness of our approach by instantiating it to the state-machine modelling domain and developing a flexible tool for merging state-machines.

REFERENCES

• 1: Marwan Abi-Antoun , Jonathan Aldrich , Nagi Nahas , Bradley Schmerl , David Garlan, Differencing and Merging of Architectural Views, Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE'06), p.47-58, September 18-22, 2006 [doi>10.1109/ASE.2006.33]
• 2: M. Alanen and I. Porres. Difference and union of models. In UML, pages 2--17, 2003.
• 3: Michael Barr , Charles Wells, Category theory for computing science, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd., Hertfordshire, UK, 1995
• 4: C. Batini , M. Lenzerini , S. B. Navathe, A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.18 n.4, p.323-364, Dec. 1986 [doi>10.1145/27633.27634]
• 5: Greg Brunet , Marsha Chechik , Steve Easterbrook , Shiva Nejati , Nan Niu , Mehrdad Sabetzadeh, A manifesto for model merging, Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Global integrated model management, May 22-22, 2006, Shanghai, China [doi>10.1145/1138304.1138307]
• 6: S. Easterbrook and B. Nuseibeh. Using viewpoints for inconsistency management. SE J., 11(1):31--43, 1996.
• 7: Alexander Franz Egyed , Barry William Boehm, Heterogeneous view integration and its automation, 2000
• 8: A. Finkelsetin, J. Kramer, B. Nuseibeh, L. Finkelstein, and M. Goedicke. Viewpoints: A framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development. SEKE, 2(1):31--58, 1992.
• 9: Y. Kalfoglou and M. Schorlemmer. Ontology mapping: The state of the art. In Semantic Interoperability and Integration, number 04391 in Dagstuhl Seminars, 2005.
• 10: S. Nejati and M. Chechik. Let's agree to disagree. Tech. Rep. CSRG-530, U. of Toronto, 2005.
• 11: S. Nejati, M. Sabetzadeh, M. Chechik, S. Easterbrook, and P. Zave. Matching and merging of statecharts specifications. Submitted for publication, 2006.
• 12: D. Richards. Merging individual conceptual models of requirements. RE J., 8(4):195--205, 2003.
• 13: M. Sabetzadeh and S. Easterbrook. Analysis of inconsistency in graph-based viewpoints: A category-theoretic approach. In ASE, pages 12--21, 2003.
• 14: Mehrdad Sabetzadeh , Steve Easterbrook, View merging in the presence of incompleteness and inconsistency, Requirements Engineering, v.11 n.3, p.174-193, June 2006 [doi>10.1007/s00766-006-0032-y]
• 15: M. Sabetzadeh and S. Nejati. TReMer: A tool for relationship-driven model merging. In FM, 2006. Demo.
• 16: Sebastian Uchitel , Marsha Chechik, Merging partial behavioural models, Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGSOFT twelfth international symposium on Foundations of software engineering, October 31-November 06, 2004, Newport Beach, CA, USA

INDEX TERMS

General Terms:
Design

Keywords:
distributed development, modelling, view merging, view-based modelling