Advertisement

Metamodel Comparison and Model Comparison for Safety Assurance

  • Yaping Luo
  • Luc Engelen
  • Mark van den Brand
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8696)

Abstract

In safety-critical domains, conceptual models are created in the form of metamodels using different concepts from possibly overlapping domains. Comparison between those conceptual models can facilitate the reuse of models from one domain to another. This paper describes the mappings detected when comparing metamodels and models used for safety assurance. We use a small use case to discuss the mappings between metamodels and models, and the relations between model elements expressed in mappings. Finally, an illustrative case study is used to demonstrate our approach.

Keywords

Metamodel Comparison Model Comparison Conceptual Model Mapping Safety Assurance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    OPENCOSS: Deliverable D4.1 - Baseline for the common certification language (2013), http://www.opencoss-project.eu/node/7
  2. 2.
    van Amstel, M.F., van den Brand, M., Serebrenik, A.: Traceability Visualization in Model Transformations with TraceVis. In: Hu, Z., de Lara, J. (eds.) ICMT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7307, pp. 152–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Falleri, J.-R., Huchard, M., Lafourcade, M., Nebut, C.: Metamodel Matching for Automatic Model Transformation Generation. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MoDELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 326–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Luo, Y., van den Brand, M., Engelen, L., Klabbers, M.: From Conceptual Model to Safety Assurance. In: Conceptual Modeling (accepted for publication, 2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Luo, Y., van den Brand, M., Engelen, L., Klabbers, M.: A Modeling Approach to Support Safety Certification in the Automotive Domain. In: ICSEng 2014 (accepted for publication, 2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luo, Y., van den Brand, M., Engelen, L., Favaro, J., Klabbers, M., Sartori, G.: Extracting Models from ISO 26262 for Reusable Safety Assurance. In: Favaro, J., Morisio, M. (eds.) ICSR 2013. LNCS, vol. 7925, pp. 192–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Narayanan, A., Levendovszky, T., Balasubramanian, D., Karsai, G.: Automatic Domain Model Migration to Manage Metamodel Evolution. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 706–711. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Panesar-Walawege, R.K., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L.: Using UML Profiles for Sector-Specific Tailoring of Safety Evidence Information. In: Jeusfeld, M., Delcambre, L., Ling, T.-W. (eds.) ER 2011. LNCS, vol. 6998, pp. 362–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Santiago, I., Vara, J.M., de Castro, M.V., Marcos, E.: Towards the Effective Use of Traceability in Model-Driven Engineering Projects. In: Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8217, pp. 429–437. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de la Vara, J.L., Panesar-Walawege, R.K.: SafetyMet: A Metamodel for Safety Standards. In: Moreira, A., Schätz, B., Gray, J., Vallecillo, A., Clarke, P. (eds.) MODELS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8107, pp. 69–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wachsmuth, G.: Metamodel Adaptation and Model Co-adaptation. In: Ernst, E. (ed.) ECOOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4609, pp. 600–624. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yaping Luo
    • 1
  • Luc Engelen
    • 1
  • Mark van den Brand
    • 1
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations