Operation Based Model Representation: Experiences on Inconsistency Detection

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6698)


Keeping the consistency between design models is paramount in complex contexts. It turns out that the underlying Model Representation Strategy has an impact on the inconsistency detection activity. The Operation Based strategy represents models as the sequence of atomic editing actions that lead to its current state. Claims have been made about gains in time and space complexity and in versatility by using this kind of representation when compared to the traditional object based one. However, this hypothesis has never been tested in an industrial context before. In this paper, we detail our experience evaluating an Operation Based consistency engine (Praxis) when compared with a legacy system based on EMF. We evaluated a set of industrial models under inconsistency rules written in both Java (for EMF) and PraxisRules (the DSL – Domain Specific Language – for describing inconsistency rules in Praxis). Our results partially confirm the gains claimed by the Operation Based engines.


Eclipse Modeling Framework Industrial Context Architecture Description Consistency Rule 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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Selic, B.: The pragmatics of model-driven development. IEEE Software 20(5), 19–25 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO/IEC FCD 42010: Systems and software engineering - Architecture Description (June 2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OMG: Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Core Specification (January 2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mens, T., Van Der Straeten, R., D’Hondt, M.: Detecting and resolving model inconsistencies using transformation dependency analysis. In: Wang, J., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 200–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Balzer, R.: Tolerating inconsistency. In: Proc. Int’ Conf. Software engineering (ICSE 1991), vol. 1, pp. 158–165 (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spanoudakis, G., Zisman, A.: Inconsistency management in software engineering: Survey and open research issues. In: Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 329–380. World Scientific, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Der Straeten, R., Mens, T., Simmonds, J., Jonckers, V.: Using description logic 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
  8. 8.
    Elaasar, M., Brian, L.: An overview of UML consistency management. Technical Report SCE-04-18 (August 2004)Google 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, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Finkelstein, A., Kramer, J., Nuseibeh, B., Finkelstein, L., Goedicke, M.: Viewpoints: A Framework for Integrating Multiple Perspectives in System Development. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 2(1), 31–57 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Blanc, X., Mougenot, A., Mounier, I., Mens, T.: Incremental detection of model inconsistencies based on model operations. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 32–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Voirin, J.L.: Model-driven architecture building for constrained systems. In: CSDM 2010 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Thales Research and TechnologyFrance
  2. 2.Thales Corporate ServicesFrance
  3. 3.LIP6, UPMC Paris UniversitasFrance
  4. 4.LABRI, Université de Bordeaux 1France

Personalised recommendations