Specifying Overlaps of Heterogeneous Models for Global Consistency Checking

  • Zinovy Diskin
  • Yingfei Xiong
  • Krzysztof Czarnecki
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6627)


Software development often involves a set of models defined in different metamodels, each model capturing a specific view of the system. We call this set a multimodel, and its elements partial or local models. Since partial models overlap, they may be consistent or inconsistent wrt. a set of global constraints.

We present a framework for specifying overlaps between partial models and defining their global consistency. An advantage of the framework is that heterogeneous consistency checking is reduced to the homogeneous case yet merging partial metamodels into one global metamodel is not needed. We illustrate the framework with examples and sketch its formal semantics based on category theory.


Local Model Consistency Check Class Diagram Category Theory Partial Model 
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.
    Egyed, A.: Instant consistency checking for the UML. In: ICSE, pp. 381–390 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sabetzadeh, M., Nejati, S., Liaskos, S., Easterbrook, S., Chechik, M.: Consistency checking of conceptual models via model merging. In: RE, pp. 221–230 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Diskin, Z., Xiong, Y., Czarnecki, K.: Specifying overlaps of heterogeneous models for global consistency checking. In: First Int. Workshop on Model-Driven Interoperability, MDI 2010, pp. 42–51. ACM Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balzer, R.: Tolerating inconsistency. In: ICSE, pp. 158–165 (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diskin, Z.: Model synchronization: mappings, tile algebra, and categories. In: Fernandes, J.M., Lämmel, R., Visser, J., Saraiva, J. (eds.) Generative and Transformational Techniques in Software Engineering III. LNCS, vol. 6491, Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sabetzadeh, M., Easterbrook, S.: View merging in the presence of incompleteness and inconsistency. Requir. Eng. 11(3), 174–193 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diskin, Z.: Towards a formal semantics for consisterncy of heterogeneous multimodels. Technical Report 2010-07, The University of Waterloo (2011),
  8. 8.
    Mossakowski, T., Tarlecki, A.: Heterogeneous logical environments for distributed specifications. In: Corradini, A., Montanari, U. (eds.) WADT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5486, pp. 266–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Broy, M., Cengarle, M., Rumpe, B.: Semantics of UML — towards a system model for UML: The structural data model. Technical Report TUM-IO612, Techniche Universität München (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nuseibeh, B., Kramer, J., Finkelstein, A.: Viewpoints: meaningful relationships are difficult? In: ICSE, pp. 676–683 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nentwich, C., Emmerich, W., Finkelstein, A.: Consistency management with repair actions. In: ICSE, pp. 455–464 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Der Straeten, R., Mens, T., Simmonds, J., Jonckers, V.: Using description logic to maintain consistency between UML models. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 326–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Egyed, A.: Fixing inconsistencies in UML design models. In: ICSE, pp. 292–301 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Easterbrook, S.M., Chechik, M.: A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints. In: ICSE, pp. 411–420 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spaccapietra, S., Parent, C.: View integration: A step forward in solving structural conflicts. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 6(2), 258–274 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bernstein, P., Pottinger, R.: Merging models based on given correspondences. In: VLDB (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cadish, B., Diskin, Z.: Heterogenious view integration via sketches and equations. In: ISMIS, pp. 603–612 (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Engels, G., Heckel, R., Taentzer, G., Ehrig, H.: A combined reference model- and view-based approach to system specification. Int. Journal of Software and Knowledge Engeneering 7, 457–477 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bézivin, J., Bouzitouna, S., Del Fabro, M.D., Gervais, M.-P., Jouault, F., Kolovos, D.S., Kurtev, I., Paige, R.F.: A canonical scheme for model composition. In: Rensink, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4066, pp. 346–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vallecillo, A.: On the combination of domain specific modeling languages. In: Kühne, T., Selic, B., Gervais, M.-P., Terrier, F. (eds.) ECMFA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6138, pp. 305–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wirsing, M., Knapp, A.: View consistency in software development. In: Wirsing, M., Knapp, A., Balsamo, S. (eds.) RISSEF 2002. LNCS, vol. 2941, pp. 341–357. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boronat, A., Knapp, A., Meseguer, J., Wirsing, M.: What is a multi-modeling language? In: Corradini, A., Montanari, U. (eds.) WADT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5486, pp. 71–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Romero, J., Jaen, J., Vallecillo, A.: Realizing correspondences in multi-viewpoint specifications. In: EDOC, pp. 163–172. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fiadeiro, J.L., Maibaum, T.S.E.: Interconnecting formalisms: Supporting modularity, reuse and incrementality. In: SIGSOFT FSE, pp. 72–80 (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liang, H., Diskin, Z., Dingel, J., Posse, E.: A general approach for scenario integration. In: Busch, C., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 204–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bernstein, P.: Applying model management to classical metadata problems. In: Proc. CIDR 2003, pp. 209–220 (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Diskin, Z.: Mathematics of generic specifications for model management. In: Rivero, Doorn, Ferraggine (eds.): Encyclopedia of Database Technologies and Applications, pp. 351–366. Idea Group, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Diskin, Z., Easterbrook, S., Miller, R.: Integrating schema integration frameworks, algebraically. Technical Report CSRG-583, University of Toronto (2008),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zinovy Diskin
    • 1
  • Yingfei Xiong
    • 1
  • Krzysztof Czarnecki
    • 1
  1. 1.Generative Software Development Lab.University of WaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations