Package Merge in UML 2: Practice vs. Theory?

  • Alanna Zito
  • Zinovy Diskin
  • Juergen Dingel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4199)


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.


Compatibility Constraint Compliance Level Package Extension Valid Instance Validity Constraint 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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. 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. 3.
    Batini, C., Lenzerini, M., Navathe, S.: A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computing Surveys 18(4), 323–364 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. 5.
    Bernstein, P., Halevy, A., Pottinger, R.: A vision for management of complex models. SIGMOD Record 29(4), 55–63 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bernstein, P., Pottinger, R.: Merging models based on given correspondences. In: Proc. Very large databases, VLDB 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. 10.
    D’Souza, D.F., Wills, A.C.: Objects, Components, and Frameworks with UML. Addison Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 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. 12.
    Goguen, J.A., Burstall, R.M.: Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming. Journal of ACM 39(1), 95–146 (1992)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure (version 2.1, ptc/06-01-02) (January 2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacobson, I., Rumbaugh, J., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Selic, B.: Personal communication (January 2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alanna Zito
    • 1
  • Zinovy Diskin
    • 1
  • Juergen Dingel
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ComputingQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations