Advertisement

Consistency-Preserving Model Evolution through Transformations

  • Gregor Engels
  • Reiko Heckel
  • Jochen M. Küster
  • Luuk Groenewegen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2460)

Abstract

With model-based development being on the verge of becoming in industrial standard, the topic of research of statically checking the consistency of model made up of several submodels has already received increasing attention.The evolution of models within software engineering requires support for increment l consistency analysis techniques of new version of the model after evolution, thereby voiding complete reiteration of all consistency tests.

In this paper, we discuss the problem of preserving consistency within model-based evolution focusing on UML-RT models. We introduce the concept of model transformation rule that captures an evolution step. Composition of several evolution steps leads to complex evolution of model. For each evolution step, we study the effects on the consistency of the overall model and provide localized consistency checks for those parts of the model that have changed. For complex evolution of model, consistency can then be established by incrementally performing those localized consistency checks associated to the transformation rules applied within the evolution.

Keywords

Transformation Rule Graph Transformation Graph Grammar Consistency Property Communicate Sequential Process 
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]
    H. Ehrig, M. Pfender, and H. Schneider. Graph grammars:an algebraic approach. In 14th Annual IEEE Symposium on Switching and Automata Theory pages 167–180. IEEE,1973.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    G. Engels, R. Heckel, and J.M. Küster. Rule-based specification of behavioral consistency based on the UML met-model.In M. Gogolla and C. Kobryn, editors,UML 2001-The Unified Modeling Language. Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools., 4th International Conference, Toronto, Canada, October 1-5, 2001, Proceedings volume 2185 of LNCS pages 272–287.Springer, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    G. Engels, J.M. Küster, L. Groenewegen, and R. Heckel. Amethodology for specifying and analyzing consistency of object-oriented behavior l models.In V. Gruhn,editor, Proceedings of the 8th European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC),pages 186–195.ACM Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Formal Systems Europe (Ltd).Failures-Divergence-Refinement: FDR2 User Manual 1997.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J.-J. Hiemer.Statecharts in CSP: Ein Prozessmodell in CSP zur Analyse von STATEMATE-Statecharts DrKovac Verlag,1999.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    C.A.R. Hoare.Communicating Sequential Processes Prentice Hall,1985.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. Jahnke and A. Zündorf.Using graph grammars for building the VARLET database reverse engineering environment.In G. Engels, H.-J. Kreowski, and G. Rozenberg,editors, Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, Volume 2: Applications, Languages, and Tools World Scientific, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Löwe.Evolution patterns. Postdoctoral thesis, Technical University of Berlin. Tech.Report 98-4, Dept.of Comp.Sci,1997.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    W. McUmber and B. Cheng. AGeneral Framework for Formalizing UML with Formal Languages.In Proceedings 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering IEEE Computer Society, May 2001.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    T. Mens, S. Demeyer, and D. Janssens. Object-oriented refactoring using graph rewriting.Technical Report vub-prog-tr-02-01,Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 2001.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Object Management Group.Model driven architecture,2001. http://www.omg.org/mda
  12. [12]
    A.W. Roscoe. The Theory and Practice of Concurrency Prentice Hall,1998.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    B. Rumpe, M. Schoenmakers, A. Radermacher, and A. Schürr.UML +ROOMs standard ADL? In Proc. ICECCS’99 Fifth IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, Las Vegas, USA IEEE Computer Society Press,1999.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    B. Selic.Using UML for modeling complex real-time systems.In F. Mueller and A. Bestavros,editors, Languages, Compilers, and Tools for Embedded Systems volume 1474 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science pages 250–262.Springer Verlag,1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    G. Sunyé, D. Pollet, Y. LeTron, and J.-M. Jézéquel. Refactoring UML models. In M. Gogolla and C. Kobryn,editors,UML 2001-The Unified Modeling Language.Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools., 4th International Conference, Toronto, Canada, October 1-5, 2001, Proceedings volume 2185 of LNCS pages 134–148.Springer, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    M. Wermelinger and J. Fiadero. A graph transformation approach to software architecture reconfiguration.In H. Ehrig and G. Taentzer, editors, Joint APPLIGRAPH/GETGRATS Workshop on Graph Transformation Systems (Gra-Tra’2000), Berlin, Germany March 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregor Engels
    • 1
  • Reiko Heckel
    • 1
  • Jochen M. Küster
    • 1
  • Luuk Groenewegen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany
  2. 2.LIACSLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations