Supporting automatic model inconsistency fixing

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Supporting automatic model inconsistency fixing

Full text

Pdf (431 KB)

Source

Foundations of Software Engineering archive
Proceedings of the 7th joint meeting of the European software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on The foundations of software engineering on European software engineering conference and foundations of software engineering symposium table of contents

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

SESSION: Specification and verification 2 table of contents

Pages 315-324

Year of Publication: 2009

ISBN:978-1-60558-001-2

Authors

Yingfei Xiong	University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Zhenjiang Hu	National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan
Haiyan Zhao	Peking University, Beijing, China
Hui Song	Peking University, Beijing, China
Masato Takeichi	University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Hong Mei	Peking University, Beijing, China

Sponsors

ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 28, Downloads (12 Months): 45, Citation Count: 0

Additional Information:

abstract references index terms

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1595696.1595757 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Modern development environments often involve models with complex consistency relations. Some of the relations can be automatically established through "fixing procedures". When users update some parts of the model and cause inconsistency, a fixing procedure dynamically propagates the update to other parts to fix the inconsistency. Existing fixing procedures are manually implemented, which requires a lot of efforts and the correctness of a fixing procedure is not guaranteed.

In this paper we propose a new language, Beanbag, to support the development of fixing procedures. A Beanbag program defines and checks a consistency relation similarly to OCL, but the program can also be executed in a fixing mode, taking user updates on the model and producing new updates to make the model satisfy the consistency relation. In this way Beanbag significantly eases the development of fixing procedures. In addition, a Beanbag program is also guaranteed to be correct with respect to the three correctness properties we define. We evaluate Beanbag over a set of MOF and UML consistency relations and the result shows that Beanbag is useful in practice.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	M. Antkiewicz and K. Czarnecki. Design space of heterogeneous synchronization. In Proc. 2nd GTTSE, pages 3--46, 2007.
	2	R. Balzer. Tolerating inconsistency. In Proc. 13th ICSE, pages 158--165, 1991.
	3	A. Egyed. Fixing inconsistencies in UML design models. In Proc. 29th ICSE, pages 292--301, 2007.
	4	A. Egyed, E. Letier, and A. Finkelstein. Generating and evaluating choices for fixing inconsistencies in UML design models. In Proc. 23rd ASE, pages 99--108, 2008.
	5	B. Elkarablieh, I. Garcia, Y. L. Suen, and S. Khurshid. Assertion-based repair of complex data structures. In Proc. 22nd ASE, pages 64--73, 2007.
	6	A. C. W. Finkelstein, D. Gabbay, A. Hunter, J. Kramer, and B. Nuseibeh. Inconsistency handling in multiperspective specifications. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 20(8):569--578, 1994.
	7	J. N. Foster, M. B. Greenwald, C. Kirkegaard, B. C. Pierce, and A. Schmitt. Schema-directed data synchronization. Technical Report MS-CIS-05-02, University of Pennsylvania, 2005. Supersedes MS-CIS-03-42.
	8	J. Grundy, J. Hosking, and W. B. Mugridge. Inconsistency management for multiple-view software development environments. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 24(11):960--981, 1998.
	9	T. Hettel, M. Lawley, and K. Raymond. Model synchronisation: Definitions for round-trip engineering. In Proc. 1st International Conference on Model Transformation, pages 31--45, 2008.
	10	N. Liu, J. Hosking, and J. Grundy. Maramatatau: Extending a domain specific visual language meta tool with a declarative constraint mechanism. In Proc. VL/HCC, 2007.
	11	C. Nentwich, W. Emmerich, and A. Finkelstein. Consistency management with repair actions. In Proc. 25th ICSE, pages 455--464, 2003.
	12	Object Management Group. Object constraint language specification 2.0. http://www.omg.org/spec/OCL/2.0, 2006.
	13	Object Management Group. XML metadata interchange specification. http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/07-12-01.pdf, 2007.
	14	Object Management Group. MOF query / views / transformations specification 1.0. http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/08-04-03.pdf, 2008.
	15	OMG. MetaObject Facility specification. http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/02-04-03.pdf, 2002.
	16	D. Ruiz-Gonzalez, N. Koch, C. Kroiss, J.-R. Romero, and A. Vallecillo. Viewpoint synchronization of UWE models. In Proc. 5th International Workshop on Model-Driven Web Engineering, pages 46--60, 2009.
	17	A. Schürr and F. Klar. 15 years of triple graph grammars. In Proc. 4th ICGT, pages 411--425, 2008.
	18	H. Song, Y. Sun, L. Zhou, and G. Huang. Towards instant automatic model refinement based on OCL. In Proc. 14th APSEC, pages 167--174, 2007.
	19	P. Stevens. Bidirectional model transformations in QVT: Semantic issues and open questions. In Proc. 10th MoDELS, pages 1--15, 2007.
	20	R. V. D. Straeten, T. Mens, J. Simmonds, and V. Jonckers. Using description logic to maintain consistency between UML models. In Proc. 6th UML, pages 326--340, 2003.
	21	E. Tsang. Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction. Academic Press, 1993.
	22	Y. Xiong. The Beanbag website. http://www.ipl.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~xiong/beanbag.html.
	23	Y. Xiong, D. Liu, Z. Hu, H. Zhao, M. Takeichi, and H. Mei. Towards automatic model synchronization from model transformations. In Proc. 22nd ASE, pages 164--173, 2007.