Incremental Detection of Model Inconsistencies Based on Model Operations

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


Due to the increasing use of models, and the inevitable model inconsistencies that arise during model-based software development and evolution, model inconsistency detection is gaining more and more attention. Inconsistency checkers typically analyze entire models to detect undesired structures as defined by inconsistency rules. The larger the models become, the more time the inconsistency detection process takes. Taking into account model evolution, one can significantly reduce this time by providing an incremental checker. In this article we propose an incremental inconsistency checker based on the idea of representing models as sequences of primitive construction operations. The impact of these operations on the inconsistency rules can be computed to analyze and reduce the number of rules that need to be re-checked during a model increment.


Model Element Equivalence Class Model Operation Model Increment Meta Object Facility 
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.


  1. 1.
    Selic, B.: The pragmatics of model-driven development. IEEE Software 20(5), 19–25 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Finkelstein, A.C.W., et al.: Inconsistency handling in multiperspective specifications. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20, 569–578 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balzer, R.: Tolerating inconsistency. In: Proc. Int’ Conf. Software engineering (ICSE 1991), vol. 1, pp. 158–165 (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fradet, P., Le Metayer, D., Peiin, M.: Consistency checking for multiple view software architectures. In: Proc. Joint Conf. ESEC/FSE 1999, vol. 41, pp. 410–428. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nentwich, C., Emmerich, W., Finkelstein, A.: Consistency management with repair actions. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE 2003), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 455–464. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Egyed, A.: Instant consistency checking for UML. In: Proceedings Int’l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE 2006), pp. 381–390. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mens, T., et al.: Detecting and resolving model inconsistencies using transformation dependency analysis. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 200–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Malgouyres, H., Motet, G.: A UML model consistency verification approach based on meta-modeling formalization. In: SAC 2006, pp. 1804–1809. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blanc, X., Mougenot, A., Mounier, I., Mens, T.: Detecting model inconsistency through operation-based model construction. In: Robby (ed.) Proc. Int’l Conf. Software engineering (ICSE 2008), vol. 1, pp. 511–520. ACM Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Egyed, A.: Fixing inconsistencies in UML design models. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE 2007), pp. 292–301. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spanoudakis, G., Zisman, A.: Inconsistency management in software engineering: Survey and open research issues. Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 329–380 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Der Straeten, R., Mens, T., Simmonds, J., Jonckers, V.: Using description logics 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.
    Elaasar, M., Brian, L.: An overview of UML consistency management. Technical Report SCE-04-18 (August 2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language: Super Structure version 2.1 (January 2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    OMG: Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Core Specification (January 2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wagner, R., Giese, H., Nickel, U.A.: A plug-in for flexible and incremental consistency management. In: Workshop on consistency problems in UML-based Software Development - Satellite Workshop of MODELS (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cabot, J., Teniente, E.: Incremental evaluation of ocl constraints. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4001, pp. 81–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO/IEC 42010: Systems and software engineering architectural description. ISO/IEC WD3 42010 and IEEE P42010/D3 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boiten, E., et al.: Issues in multiparadigm viewpoint specification. In: Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 162–166 (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kowalski, R.A., Sadri, F., Soper, P.: Integrity checking in deductive databases. In: Proc. Int’l Conf. Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), pp. 61–69. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1987)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INRIA Lille-Nord Europe, LIFL CNRS UMR 8022Université des Sciences et Technologies de LilleFrance
  2. 2.MoVe - LIP6Université Pierre et Marie CurieFrance
  3. 3.Service de Génie LogicielUniversité de Mons-HainautBelgium

Personalised recommendations