Establishing Correspondences between Models with the Epsilon Comparison Language

  • Dimitrios S. Kolovos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5562)


Model comparison is an essential prerequisite for a number of model management tasks in Model Driven Engineering, such as model differencing and versioning, model and aspect merging and model transformation testing. In this paper we present the Epsilon Comparison Language (ECL), a hybrid rule-based language, built atop the Epsilon platform, which enables developers to implement comparison algorithms at a high level of abstraction and execute them in order to identify matches between elements belonging to models of diverse metamodels and modelling technologies.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kolovos, D.S., Di Ruscio, D., Paige, R.F., Pierantonio, A.: Different Models for Model Matching: An analysis of approaches to support model differencing. In: Proc. 2nd Workshop on Comparison and Versioning of Software Models. ACM/IEEE ICSE, Vancouver (2009) (to appear)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Treude, C., Berlik, S., Wenzel, S., Kelter, U.: Difference computation of large models. In: ESEC-FSE: Proceedings of the the 6th joint meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on The Foundations of Software Engineering, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 295–304 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lin, Y., Gray, J., Jouault, F.: DSMDiff: A Differentiation Tool for Domain-Specific Models. European Journal of Information Systems 16(4), 349–361 (2007); Special Issue on Model-Driven Systems Development CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Extensible Platform for Specification of Integrated Languages for mOdel maNagement (Epsilon),
  5. 5.
    Object Management Group. Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Core Specification,
  6. 6.
    Eclipse Foundation. Eclipse Modelling Framework,
  7. 7.
    Alanen, M., Porres, I.: Difference and Union of Models. Technical Report 527, TUCS (April 2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fleurey, F., Baudry, B., France, R., Ghosh, S.: A Generic Approach For Automatic Model Composition. In: Proc. 11th International Workshop on Aspect-Oriented Modeling, Nashville, USA (September 2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chauvel, F., Fleurey, F.: Kermeta Language Overview,
  10. 10.
    Fabro, M.D.D., Valduriez, P.: Semi-automatic model integration using matching transformations and weaving models. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on Applied computing, Seoul, Korea, pp. 963–970 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming Models with the ATL. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 128–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sun Microsystems. Meta Data Repository,
  13. 13.
    Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C.: The Epsilon Object Language. In: Rensink, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4066, pp. 128–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Navarro, G.: A guided tour to approximate string matching. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 33(1), 31–88 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levenshtein, V.I.: Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 10, 707–710 (1966)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitrios S. Kolovos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkHeslington, YorkUK

Personalised recommendations