Package Merge in UML 2: Practice vs. Theory?
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.
KeywordsCompatibility Constraint Compliance Level Package Extension Valid Instance Validity Constraint
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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