Skip to main content

Package Merge in UML 2: Practice vs. Theory?

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 4199))

Abstract

The notion of compliance is meant to facilitate tool interoperability. UML 2 offers 4 compliance levels. Level L i + 1 is obtained from Level L i through an operation called package merge. Package merge is intended to allow modeling concepts defined at one level to be extended with new features. To ensure interoperability, package merge has to ensure compatibility: the XMI representation of the result of the merge has to be compatible with that of the original package. UML 2 lacks a precise and comprehensive definition of package merge. This paper reports on our work to understand and formalize package merge. Its main result is that package merge as defined in UML 2.1 does not ensure compatibility. To expose the problem and possible remedies more clearly, we present this result in terms of a very general classification of model extension mechanisms.

Research supported by IBM CAS Ottawa and OCE Centre of Communications and Information Technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alagic, S., Berstein, P.: A model theory for generic schema management. In: Eighth International Workshop on Databases and Programming Languages, pp. 228–246 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barwise, J. (ed.): Handbook of Mathematical Logic. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 90. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Batini, C., Lenzerini, M., Navathe, S.: A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computing Surveys 18(4), 323–364 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. France, R., Baudry, B., Fleurey, F., Reddy, R.: Exploring the relationship between model composition and model transformation. In: Proc. of Aspect Oriented Modeling Workshop, in conjunction with MoDELS 2005 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bernstein, P., Halevy, A., Pottinger, R.: A vision for management of complex models. SIGMOD Record 29(4), 55–63 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bernstein, P., Pottinger, R.: Merging models based on given correspondences. In: Proc. Very large databases, VLDB 2003 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Diskin, Z.: Abstract metamodeling, I: How to reason about meta-metamodeling in a formal way. In: Baclawski, K., Kilov, H., Thalassinidis, A., Tyson, K. (eds.) 8th OOPSLA Workshop on Behavioral Specifications, OOPSLA 1999, Northeastern University, College of Computer Science (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Diskin, Z., Kadish, B., Piessens, F., Johnson, M.: Universal arrow foundations for visual modeling. In: Anderson, M., Cheng, P., Haarslev, V. (eds.) Diagrams 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1889, pp. 345–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Diskin, Z., Kadish, B.: Generic model management. In: Doorn, Rivero, Ferraggine (eds.) Encyclopedia of Database Technologies and Applications, pp. 258–265. Idea Group, USA (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  10. D’Souza, D.F., Wills, A.C.: Objects, Components, and Frameworks with UML. Addison Wesley, Reading (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  11. France, R., Georg, G., Ray, I.: Composing aspect models. In: The 4th Aspect Oriented Software Development Modeling With UML Workshop (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Goguen, J.A., Burstall, R.M.: Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming. Journal of ACM 39(1), 95–146 (1992)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure (version 2.1, ptc/06-01-02) (January 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jacobson, I., Rumbaugh, J., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley, Reading (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Selic, B.: Personal communication (January 2006)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Zito, A., Diskin, Z., Dingel, J. (2006). Package Merge in UML 2: Practice vs. Theory?. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. MODELS 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4199. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11880240_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11880240_14

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-45772-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45773-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics