A Reconciliation Framework to Support Cooperative Work with DSM

  • Amanuel Alemayehu KoshimaEmail author
  • Vincent Englebert
  • Philippe Thiran


Despite the fact that domain specific models (DSM) tools become very powerful and more frequently used, the support for their cooperation has not reached its full strength and the demand for model management is growing. In cooperative work, the decision agents are semi-autonomous and therefore a solution for reconciliating DSM after a concurrent evolution is needed. Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) community proposes tools or techniques to ensure collaboration among general purpose modeling languages, but they do not usually give functionalities to support reconciliation and merging for asynchronous modifications. In addition, management of communications among members of a working group could also help to facilitate their collaboration. In this chapter, we propose a communication framework called DiCoMEF to manage exchanges of concurrently edited DSM models among a group of engineers. Besides, we present a reconciliation framework to merge concurrently evolved DSM models along with their metamodels.


Collaborative modeling CSCW DSML EMF Migration 


  1. 1.
    Altmanninger, K., Seidl, M., Wimmer, M.: A survey on model versioning approaches. Tech. rep., Johannes Kepler University Linz (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borghoff, U., Schlichter, J.: Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Introduction to Distributed Applications. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boukhebouze, M., Koshima, A., Thiran, P., Englebert, V.: Comparative analysis of collaborative approaches for UsiXML meta-models evolution. In: 1st International User Interface eXtensible Markup Language Workshop, EICS 2009 Conference, pp. 9–14. Thales Research and Technology France, France (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Constantin, C., Englebert, V., Thiran, P.: A reconciliation framework to support cooperative work with DSM. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Domain Engineering Held in Conjunction with CAiSE’09 Conference, collection, vol. 457 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Demeyer, S., Tichelaar, S., Ducasse, S.: FAMIX 2.1- the FAMOOS information exchange model. Tech. rep., University of Bern (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dewan, P., Hegde, R.: Semi-synchronous conflict detection and resolution in asynchronous software development. In: Harper, R., Gutwin, C. (eds.) ECSCW, pp. 159–178. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    EDAPT: Framework for Ecore model adaptation and instance migration. (2012)
  8. 8.
    Edwards, W.K.: Policies and roles in collaborative applications. In: Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW ’96, pp. 11–20. ACM, New York, NY (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Englebert, V., Heymans, P.: Towards more extensible meta-CASE tools. In: Krogstie, J., Opdhal, A., Sindre, G. (eds.) International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’07), no. 4495 in LNCS, pp. 454–468 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gîrba, T., Favre, J.M., Ducasse, S.: Using meta-model transformation to model software evolution. Electron. Note Theor. Comput. Sci. 137, 57–64 (2005). DOI URL
  11. 11.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Metamodelling for Software Engineering. Wiley, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gruschko, B.: Towards synchronizing models with evolving metamodels. In: Proc. Int. Workshop on Model-Driven Software Evolution Held with the ECSMR (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herrmannsdoerfer, M.: Operation-based versioning of metamodels with cope. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ICSE Workshop on Comparison and Versioning of Software Models, CVSM ’09, pp. 49–54. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2009). DOI URL
  14. 14.
    Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Benz, S., Juergens, E.: COPE: A Language for the Coupled Evolution of Metamodels and Models. In: Proc. of the 1st International Workshop on Model Co-Evolution and Consistency Management. ACM, New York, NY (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holt, R.C., Schürr, A., Sim, S.E., Winter, A.: GXL: a graph-based standard exchange format for reengineering. Sci. Comput. Program. 60(2), 149–170 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ignat, C.L., Oster, G., Molli, P., Cart, M., Ferrie, J., Kermarrec, A.M., Sutra, P., Shapiro, M., Benmouffok, L., Busca, J.M., Guerraoui, R.: A comparison of optimistic approaches to collaborative editing of Wiki pages. In: Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing, pp. 474–483. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2007). DOI 10.1109/COLCOM.2007.4553878Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kelly, S.: CASE tool support for co-operative work in information system design. In: Rolland, C., Chen, Y., Fang, M. (eds.) IFIP TC8/WG8.1 Working Conference on Information Systems in the WWW Environment, pp. 49–69. Chapman & Hall (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kelly, S., Tolvanen, J.P.: Domain-specific modeling enabling full code generation. Wiley-Interscience IEEE Computer Society, Hoboken (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koegel, M., Helming, J.: EMFStore: a model repository for emf models. In: Kramer, J., Bishop, J., Devanbu, P.T., Uchitel, S. (eds.) ICSE (2), pp. 307–308. ACM, New York, NY (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koegel, M., Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Helming, J., Li, Y.: State-based vs. operation-based change tracking. In: Proceedings of MODELS’09 MoDSE-MCCM Workshop. Denver, USA (2009). URL
  21. 21.
    Koegel, M., Herrmannsdoerfer, M., von Wesendonk, O., Helming, J.: Operation-based conflict detection. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Model Comparison in Practice, IWMCP ’10, pp. 21–30. ACM, New York, NY (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koshima, A., Englebert, V., Thiran, P.: Distributed collaborative model editing framework for domain specific modeling tools. In: ICGSE, pp. 113–118. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    de Lara, J., Vangheluwe, H.: Using AToM as a meta-CASE tool. In: ICEIS’02, pp. 642–649 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ledeczi, A., Maroti, M., Bakay, A., Karsai, G., Garrett, J., Thomason, C., Nordstrom, G., Sprinkle, J., Volgyesi, P.: The generic modeling environment. In: Workshop on Intelligent Signal Processing (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lippe, E., van Oosterom, N.: Operation-based merging. SIGSOFT Software Eng. Note 17, 78–87 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mens, T.: A state-of-the-art survey on software merging. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 28, 449–462 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mougenot, A., Blanc, X., Gervais, M.P.: D-Praxis: A peer-to-peer collaborative model editing framework. In: Proceedings of the 9th IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference on Distributed Applications and Interoperable Systems, DAIS ’09, pp. 16–29. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification. (2002)
  29. 29.
    Pilato, C., Collins-Sussman, B., Fitzpatrick, B.: Version Control with Subversion, 2nd edn. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Petri net markup language PNML. (2011)
  31. 31.
    Ralyté, J., Roll, C.: An approach for method reengineering. In: Proceedings of the 20 th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER2001), LNCS 2224, pp. 471–484. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rose, L., Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Mazanek, S., Van Gorp, P., Buchwald, S., Horn, T., Kalnina, E., Koch, A., Lano, K., Schätz, B., Wimmer, M.: Graph and model transformation tools for model migration. Software and Systems Modeling pp. 1–37 (2012). URL 10.1007/s10270-012-0245-0
  33. 33.
    Rose, L.M., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C.: Model migration with epsilon flock. In: Proceedings of the Third international conference on Theory and practice of model transformations, ICMT’10, pp. 184–198. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2010). URL
  34. 34.
    Rose, L.M., Paige, R.F., Kolovos, D.S., Polack, F.A.C.: An analysis of approaches to model migration. In: Proc. Models and Evolution (MoDSE-MCCM) Workshop, 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering, Languages and Systems (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Saeki, M.: Configuration management in a method engineering context. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4001, pp. 384–398. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schmidt, D.C.: Guest editor’s introduction: Model-driven engineering. IEEE Comput. 39(2), 25–31 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schmidt, K., Bannon, L.: Taking CSCW seriously: Supporting articulation work. Comput. Supported Cooper. Work 1, 7–40 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sriplakich, P., Blanc, X., Gervais, M.P.: Supporting collaborative development in an open MDA environment. In: Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, pp. 244–253. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2006). DOI 10.1109/ICSM.2006.64Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Paternostro, M., Merks, E.: EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River (2009)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    OMG, XMI mapping specification, v2.1.1, formal/07-12-0 (2007)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhang, J.: Metamodel-driven model interpreter evolution. In: Companion to the 20th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, OOPSLA ’05, pp. 214–215. ACM, New York, NY (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amanuel Alemayehu Koshima
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vincent Englebert
    • 1
  • Philippe Thiran
    • 1
  1. 1.PReCISE Research CenterUniversity of NamurNamurBelgium

Personalised recommendations