Advertisement

Evolving XML Schemas and Documents Using UML Class Diagrams

  • Eladio Domínguez
  • Jorge Lloret
  • Ángel L. Rubio
  • María A. Zapata
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3588)

Abstract

The widespread use of XML brings new challenges for its integration into general software development processes. In particular, it is necessary to keep the consistency between different software artifacts and XML documents when evolution tasks are carried out. In this paper we present an approach to evolve XML schemas and documents conceptually modeled by means of UML class diagrams. Evolution primitives are issued on the UML class diagram and are automatically propagated down to the XML schema. The XML documents are also automatically modified to conform to the new XML schema. In this way, the consistency between the different artifacts involved is kept. This goal is achieved by using an intermediate component which reflects how the UML diagrams are translated into the XML schemas.

Keywords

Translation Component Translation Rule Evolution Task Root Element Xpath Expression 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bernauer, M., Kappel, G., Kramler, G.: Representing XML Schema in UML – A Comparison of Approaches. In: Koch, N., Fraternali, P., Wirsing, M. (eds.) ICWE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3140, pp. 440–444. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernstein, P.A.: Applying Model Management to Classical Meta Data Problems. In: First Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research- CIDR 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Conrad, R., Scheffner, D., Freytag, J.C.: XML Conceptual Modeling Using UML. In: Laender, A.H.F., Liddle, S.W., Storey, V.C. (eds.) ER 2000. LNCS, vol. 1920, pp. 558–571. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Domínguez, E., Lloret, J., Rubio, A.L., Zapata, M.A.: Elementary translations: the seesaws for achieving traceability between database schemata. In: Wang, S., Tanaka, K., Zhou, S., Ling, T.-W., Guan, J., Yang, D.-q., Grandi, F., Mangina, E.E., Song, I.-Y., Mayr, H.C. (eds.) ER Workshops 2004. LNCS, vol. 3289, pp. 377–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Domínguez, E., Lloret, J., Zapata, M.A.: An architecture for Managing Database Evolution. In: Olivé, À., Yoshikawa, M., Yu, E.S.K. (eds.) ER 2003. LNCS, vol. 2784, pp. 63–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hick, J.M., Hainaut, J.L.: Strategy for Database Application Evolution: The DB-MAIN Approach. In: Song, I.-Y., Liddle, S.W., Ling, T.-W., Scheuermann, P. (eds.) ER 2003. LNCS, vol. 2813, pp. 291–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Java Architecture for XML Binding (JAXB), Available at http://java.sun.com/xml/jaxb/
  8. 8.
    Krumbein, T., Kudrass, T.: Rule-Based Generation of XML Schemas from UML Class Diagrams. In: Tolksdorf, R., Eckstein, R. (eds.) Berliner XML Tage 2003, XML-Clearinghouse 2003, pp. 213–227 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    López, J.R., Olivé, A.: A Framework for the Evolution of Temporal Conceptual Schemas of Information Systems. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L.D. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, pp. 369–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miller, J., Mukerji, J. (eds.): MDA Guide Version 1.0.1, Object Management Group, Document number omg/2003-06-01 (May 2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    OMG, Meta Object Facility (MOF) specification, version 1.4, formal/02–04–03 (April 2002), Available at http://www.omg.org
  12. 12.
    OMG, MOF 2.0 Query / Views / Transformations RFP, ad/2002–04–10 (2002), Available at http://www.omg.org
  13. 13.
    Ramesh, B.: Factors influencing requirements traceability practice. Communications of the ACM 41(12), 37–44 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Routledge, N., Bird, L., Goodchild, A.: UML and XML schema. In: Zhou, X. (ed.) Thirteenth Australasian Database Conference, pp. 157–166 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Su, H., Kramer, D., Chen, L., Claypool, K.T., Rundensteiner, E.A.: XEM: Managing the evolution of XML Documents. In: Aberer, K., Liu, L. (eds.) 11th Intl. Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering, pp. 103–110. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    W3C XML Working Group, XML Schema Parts 0–2 (2nd ed.), Available at http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema#dev
  17. 17.
    W3C XML Working Group, Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (3rd ed.), Available at http://www.w3.org/XML/Core/#Publications
  18. 18.
    Wan-Kadir, W.M.N., Loucopoulos, P.: Relating evolving business rules to software design. Journal of Systems Architecture 50(7), 367–382 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eladio Domínguez
    • 1
  • Jorge Lloret
    • 1
  • Ángel L. Rubio
    • 2
  • María A. Zapata
    • 1
  1. 1.Dpto. de Informática e Ingeniería de Sistemas, Facultad de Ciencias. Edificio de MatemáticasUniversidad de ZaragozaZaragozaSpain
  2. 2.Dpto. de Matemáticas y Computación. Edificio VivesUniversidad de La RiojaLogroñoSpain

Personalised recommendations