Preventing Information Loss in Incremental Model Synchronization by Reusing Elements

  • Joel Greenyer
  • Sebastian Pook
  • Jan Rieke
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6698)


The development of complex mechatronic systems requires the close collaboration of multiple engineering disciplines. Hence, multidisciplinary system engineering approaches have been developed. However, the refinement of discipline-specific aspects of the system, for example the implementation of software controllers, still requires discipline-specific models and tools. During the development, changes in these discipline-specific models may affect other disciplines’ models. Thus, inconsistencies are likely to occur, leading to increased development time and costs if they remain undetected. Bidirectional model synchronization techniques aim at automatically resolving such inconsistencies. Existing synchronization algorithms today, however, fail in this application scenario, because synchronization steps often unnecessarily destroy and re-create elements, which damages parts of the models that are not subject to the synchronization. In order to solve these issues, we present a novel synchronization technique based on Triple Graph Grammars with improvements regarding the reuse of model elements.


Incremental Model Synchronization Mechatronic System Design Triple Graph Grammars (TGG) Information Retainment in the Target 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Burmester, S., Giese, H., Tichy, M.: Model-Driven Development of Reconfigurable Mechatronic Systems with Mechatronic UML. In: Aßmann, U., Rensink, A., Aksit, M. (eds.) MDAFA 2003. LNCS, vol. 3599, pp. 47–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gausemeier, J., Frank, U., Donoth, J., Kahl, S.: Specification technique for the description of self-optimizing mechatronic systems. Research in Engineering Design 20(4), 201–223 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gausemeier, J., Schäfer, W., Greenyer, J., Kahl, S., Pook, S., Rieke, J.: Management of Cross-Domain Model Consistency During the Development of Advanced Mechatronic Systems. In: Proc. of the 17th Int. Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 2009) (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giese, H., Hildebrandt, S.: Efficient Model Synchronization of Large-Scale Models. Tech. Rep. 28, Hasso Plattner Institute at the University of Potsdam (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giese, H., Wagner, R.: From model transformation to incremental bidirectional model synchronization. Software and Systems Modeling 8(1) (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greenyer, J., Kindler, E.: Comparing relational model transformation technologies: implementing Query/View/Transformation with Triple Graph Grammars. Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM) 9(1) (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greenyer, J., Rieke, J.: Improved algorithm for preventing information loss in incremental model synchronization. Tech. Rep. tr-ri-11-324, Software Engineering Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Paderborn (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hearnden, D., Lawley, M., Raymond, K.: Incremental Model Transformation for the Evolution of Model-Driven Systems. In: Wang, J., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 321–335. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jimenez, A.M.: Change Propagation in the MDA: A Model Merging Approach. Master’s thesis, University of Queensland (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Körtgen, A.T.: Modellierung und Realisierung von Konsistenzsicherungswerkzeugen für simultane Dokumentenentwicklung. Ph.D. thesis, RWTH Aachen University (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core 2.0 Specification (2006),
  12. 12.
    Object Management Group (OMG): MOF Query/View/Transformation (QVT) 1.0 Specification (2008),
  13. 13.
    Ráth, I., Varró, G., Varró, D.: Change-driven model transformations. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 342–356. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schürr, A.: Specification of Graph Translators with Triple Graph Grammars. In: Mayr, E.W., Schmidt, G., Tinhofer, G. (eds.) WG 1994. LNCS, vol. 903. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Varró, G., Varró, D., Schürr, A.: Incremental Graph Pattern Matching: Data Structures and Initial Experiments. Graph and Model Transformation (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Varró, G., Friedl, K., Varró, D.: Adaptive graph pattern matching for model transformations using model-sensitive search plans. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 152 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Verein Deutscher Ingenieure: Design Methodology for Mechatronic Systems (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xiong, Y., Song, H., Hu, Z., Takeichi, M.: Supporting Parallel Updates with Bidirectional Model Transformations. In: Paige, R.F. (ed.) ICMT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5563, pp. 213–228. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joel Greenyer
    • 1
  • Sebastian Pook
    • 2
  • Jan Rieke
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Engineering Group, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany
  2. 2.Heinz Nixdorf InstituteUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations