Using Macromodels to Manage Collections of Related Models

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5565)


The creation and manipulation of multiple related models is common in software development, however there are few tools that help to manage such collections of models. We propose a framework in which different types of model relationships – such as submodelOfand refinementOf – can be formally defined and used with a new type of model, called a macromodel, to express the required relationships between models at a high-level of abstraction. Macromodels can be used to support the development, comprehension, consistency management and evolution of sets of related models. We illustrate the framework with a detailed example from the telecommunications industry and describe a prototype implementation.


Modeling Metamodeling Macromodeling Relationships Mappings 


  1. 1.
    Aizenbud-Reshef, N., Nolan, B.T., Rubin, J., Shaham-Gafni, Y.: Model Traceability. IBM Systems Journal 45(3), 515–526 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ATLAS MegaModel Management website,
  3. 3.
    Bernstein, P.: Applying Model Management to Classical Meta Data Problems. In: Proc. Conf. on Innovative Database Research, pp. 209–220 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Favre, J.M.: Modelling and Etymology. Transformation Techniques in Software Engineering (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goguen, J.A., Burstall, R.M.: Institutions: Abstract Model Theory for Specification and Programming. J. ACM 39(1), 95–146 (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M.: Ontology mapping: the state of the art. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18(1), 1–31 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ledeczi, A., Maroti, M., Bakay, A., Karsai, G., Garrett, J., Thomason IV, C., Nordstrom, G., Sprinkle, J., Volgyesi, P.: The Generic Modeling Environment. In: Workshop on Intelligent Signal Processing (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); Methodological approach to the use of object-orientation in the standards making process. ETSI EG 201 872 V1.2.1 (2001-2008),
  9. 9.
    Moody, D.: Dealing with ‘Map Shock’: A Systematic Approach for Managing Complexity in Requirements Modelling. In: Proceedings of REFSQ 2006, Luxembourg (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nuseibeh, B., Kramer, J., Finkelstein, A.: A Framework for Expressing the Relationships Between Multiple Views in Requirements Specifications. IEEE TSE 20(10), 760–773 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sabetzadeh, M., Easterbrook, S.: An Algebraic Framework for Merging Incomplete and Inconsistent Views. In: 13th IEEE RE Conference, Paris, France (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salay, R., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S., Diskin, Z., McCormick, P., Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Viriyakattiyaporn, P.: An Eclipse-Based Tool Framework for Software Model Management. In: ETX 2007 at OOPSLA 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Salay, R.: Macro Support for Modeling in Software Engineering. Technical Report, University of Toronto,
  14. 14.
    Salay, R., Mylopoulos, J., Easterbrook, S.: Managing Models through Macromodeling. In: Proc. ASE 2008, pp. 447–450 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Software Process Engineering Metamodel V1.1. Object Management Group,
  16. 16.
    Torlak, E., Jackson, D.K.: A Relational Model Finder. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations