skip to main content
article

A relationship-driven approach to view merging

Published:01 November 2006Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

A key problem in view-based software development is merging a set of disparate views into a single seamless view. To merge a set of views, we need to know how they are related. In this extended abstract, we discuss the methodological aspects of describing the relationships between views. We argue that view relationships should be treated as first-class artifacts in the merge problem and propose a general approach to view merging based on this argument. We illustrate the usefulness of our approach by instantiating it to the state-machine modelling domain and developing a flexible tool for merging state-machines.

References

  1. M. Abi-Antoun, J. Aldrich, N. Nahas, B. Schmerl, and D. Garlan. Differencing and merging of architectural views. In ASE, 2006. (To appear). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. M. Alanen and I. Porres. Difference and union of models. In UML, pages 2--17, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. M. Barr and C. Wells. Category Theory for Computing Science. CRM, Montréal, Canada, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. C. Batini, M. Lenzerini, and S. Navathe. A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computing Surveys, 18(4):323--364, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. G. Brunet, M. Chechik, S. Easterbrook, S. Nejati, N. Niu, and M. Sabetzadeh. A manifesto for model merging. In Wkshp. on Global Integrated Model Management, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. Easterbrook and B. Nuseibeh. Using viewpoints for inconsistency management. SE J., 11(1):31--43, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. A. Egyed. Heterogeneous View Integration and its Automation. PhD thesis, USC, USA, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. A. Finkelsetin, J. Kramer, B. Nuseibeh, L. Finkelstein, and M. Goedicke. Viewpoints: A framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development. SEKE, 2(1):31--58, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Y. Kalfoglou and M. Schorlemmer. Ontology mapping: The state of the art. In Semantic Interoperability and Integration, number 04391 in Dagstuhl Seminars, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. S. Nejati and M. Chechik. Let's agree to disagree. Tech. Rep. CSRG-530, U. of Toronto, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. S. Nejati, M. Sabetzadeh, M. Chechik, S. Easterbrook, and P. Zave. Matching and merging of statecharts specifications. Submitted for publication, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. D. Richards. Merging individual conceptual models of requirements. RE J., 8(4):195--205, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. M. Sabetzadeh and S. Easterbrook. Analysis of inconsistency in graph-based viewpoints: A category-theoretic approach. In ASE, pages 12--21, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M. Sabetzadeh and S. Easterbrook. View merging in the presence of incompleteness and inconsistency. RE J., 11(3):174--193, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. M. Sabetzadeh and S. Nejati. TReMer: A tool for relationship-driven model merging. In FM, 2006. Demo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. S. Uchitel and M. Chechik. Merging partial behavioural models. In FSE, pages 43--52, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

Full Access

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader