Model Interchange Testing: A Process and a Case Study

  • Maged Elaasar
  • Yvan Labiche
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7349)


Modeling standards by the Object Management Group (OMG) enable the interchange of models between tools. In practice, the success of such interchange has been severely limited due to ambiguities and inconsistencies in the standards and lack of rigorous testing of tools’ interchange capabilities. This motivated a number of OMG members, including tool vendors and users, to form a Model Interchange Working Group (MIWG) to test and improve model interchange between tools. In this paper, we report on the activities of the MIWG, presenting its testing process and highlighting its design decisions and challenges. We also report on a case study where the MIWG has used its process to test the interchange of UML and SysML models. We make observations, present statistics and discuss lessons learned. We conclude that the MIWG has indeed defined a rigorous, effective and semi-automated process for model interchange testing, which has resulted in more reliable interchange of models between participating tools.


Model Interchange MOF UML SysML XMI OCL 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Unified Modeling Language, Superstructure v2.4.1.,
  3. 3.
    Business Process Model and Notation v2.0.,
  4. 4.
    Meta Object Facility Core v2.4.1.,
  5. 5.
    MOF 2 XMI Mapping v2.4.1.,
  6. 6.
    Systems Modeling Language, v1.2.,
  7. 7.
    Diagram Definition v1.0 FTF Beta 2.,
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    OMG Object Constraint Language v.2.3.1.,
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Unified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF v2.0.,
  13. 13.
    Service Oriented Architecture Modeling Lang. v1.0.,
  14. 14.
    Alanen, M., Porres, I.: Model Interchange Using OMG Standards. In: Proc. of the 31st EUROMICRO Conf. on Soft. Eng. and Advanced Apps., pp. 450–459 (September 2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Persson, A., Gustavsson, H., Lings, B., Lundell, B., Mattsson, A., Ärlig, U.: OSS tools in a heterogeneous environment for embedded systems modelling: an analysis of adoptions of XMI. In: Proc. of the 5th Workshop on Open Source Software Engineering (May 2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Persson, A., Gustavsson, H., Lings, B., Lundell, B., Mattsson, A., Ärlig, U.: Adopting Open Source Development Tools in a Commercial Production Environment—Are we Locked-in? In: Proc. of 10th EMMSAD (June 2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lundell, B., Lings, B., Persson, A., Mattsson, A.: UML Model Interchange in Heterogeneous Tool Environments: An Analysis of Adoptions of XMI 2. In: Wang, J., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 619–630. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eichelberger, H., Eldogan, Y., Schmid, K.: A Comprehensive Survey of UML Compliance in Current Modelling Tools. In: SE 2009. LNI, vol. 143, pp. 39–50 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maged Elaasar
    • 1
  • Yvan Labiche
    • 2
  1. 1.Rational Software, Ottawa LabIBM Canada LtdKanataCanada
  2. 2.Department of Systems and Computer EngineeringCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations