2000 character limit reached
Towards behavioral consistency in heterogeneous modeling scenarios (2404.12941v1)
Published 19 Apr 2024 in cs.SE
Abstract: Behavioral models play an essential role in Model-driven engineering (MDE). Keeping inter-related behavioral models consistent is critical to use them successfully in MDE. However, consistency checking for behavioral models, especially in a heterogeneous scenario, is limited. We propose a methodology to integrate heterogeneous behavioral models to achieve consistency checking in broader scenarios. It is based on aligning the respective behavioral metamodels by defining possible inter-model relations which carry behavioral meaning. Converting the models and their relations to a behavioral formalism enables analysis of global behavioral consistency using model-checking.
- R. France and B. Rumpe, “Model-driven Development of Complex Software: A Research Roadmap,” in Future of Software Engineering (FOSE ’07). Minneapolis, MN, USA: IEEE, May 2007, pp. 37–54.
- A. Cicchetti, F. Ciccozzi, and A. Pierantonio, “Multi-view approaches for software and system modelling: A systematic literature review,” Software and Systems Modeling, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 3207–3233, Dec. 2019.
- J. Bézivin, S. Bouzitouna, M. D. Del Fabro, M.-P. Gervais, F. Jouault, D. Kolovos, I. Kurtev, and R. F. Paige, “A Canonical Scheme for Model Composition,” in Model Driven Architecture – Foundations and Applications, D. Hutchison, T. Kanade, J. Kittler, J. M. Kleinberg, F. Mattern, J. C. Mitchell, M. Naor, O. Nierstrasz, C. Pandu Rangan, B. Steffen, M. Sudan, D. Terzopoulos, D. Tygar, M. Y. Vardi, G. Weikum, A. Rensink, and J. Warmer, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006, vol. 4066, pp. 346–360.
- S. Feldmann, K. Kernschmidt, M. Wimmer, and B. Vogel-Heuser, “Managing inter-model inconsistencies in model-based systems engineering: Application in automated production systems engineering,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 153, pp. 105–134, Jul. 2019.
- W. Torres, M. G. J. van den Brand, and A. Serebrenik, “A systematic literature review of cross-domain model consistency checking by model management tools,” Software and Systems Modeling, Oct. 2020.
- P. Stünkel, H. König, Y. Lamo, and A. Rutle, “Towards Multiple Model Synchronization with Comprehensive Systems,” in Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, H. Wehrheim and J. Cabot, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, vol. 12076, pp. 335–356.
- H. Klare and J. Gleitze, “Commonalities for Preserving Consistency of Multiple Models,” in 2019 ACM/IEEE 22nd International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion (MODELS-C). Munich, Germany: IEEE, Sep. 2019, pp. 371–378.
- P. Stünkel, H. König, Y. Lamo, and A. Rutle, “Multimodel correspondence through inter-model constraints,” in Conference Companion of the 2nd International Conference on Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming - Programming’18 Companion. Nice, France: ACM Press, 2018, pp. 9–17.
- A. Egyed, “Fixing Inconsistencies in UML Design Models,” in 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’07). Minneapolis, MN, USA: IEEE, May 2007, pp. 292–301.
- G. Engels, J. M. Küster, R. Heckel, and L. Groenewegen, “A methodology for specifying and analyzing consistency of object-oriented behavioral models,” ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 186–195, Sep. 2001.
- J. Küster and J. Stehr, “Towards explicit behavioral consistency concepts in the UML,” in Proceedings of 2nd ICSE Workshop on Scenarios and State Machines: Models, Algorithms, and Tools (Portland, USA), 2003.
- S. Yao and S. Shatz, “Consistency Checking of UML Dynamic Models Based on Petri Net Techniques,” in 2006 15th International Conference on Computing. Mexico city, Mexico: IEEE, Nov. 2006, pp. 289–297.
- E. Cunha, M. Custodio, H. Rocha, and R. Barreto, “Formal Verification of UML Sequence Diagrams in the Embedded Systems Context,” in 2011 Brazilian Symposium on Computing System Engineering. Florianopolis, Brazil: IEEE, Nov. 2011, pp. 39–45.
- Y. Thierry-Mieg and L.-M. Hillah, “UML behavioral consistency checking using instantiable Petri nets,” Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 293–300, Oct. 2008.
- J. Eker, J. Janneck, E. Lee, Jie Liu, Xiaojun Liu, J. Ludvig, S. Neuendorffer, S. Sachs, and Yuhong Xiong, “Taming heterogeneity - the Ptolemy approach,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 127–144, Jan. 2003.
- J. Deantoni, “Modeling the Behavioral Semantics of Heterogeneous Languages and their Coordination,” in 2016 Architecture-Centric Virtual Integration (ACVI). Venice, Italy: IEEE, Apr. 2016, pp. 12–18.
- S. Tripakis, C. Stergiou, C. Shaver, and E. A. Lee, “A modular formal semantics for Ptolemy,” Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 834–881, Aug. 2013.
- M. El Hamlaoui, B. Coulette, S. Ebersold, S. Bennani, M. Nassar, A. Anwar, A. Beugnard, J.-C. Bach, Y. Jamoussi, and H. N. Tran, “Alignment of viewpoint heterogeneous design models: Emergency department case study,” in 4th International Workshop on the Globalization of Modeling Languages (GEMOC 2016) Co-Located with ACM/IEEE MODELS 2016, Saint-Malo, France, Oct. 2016, pp. pp. 18–27.
- S. Kuske, “A formal semantics of UML state machines based on structured graph transformation,” in ≪much-less-than\ll≪UML≫much-greater-than\gg≫ 2001 — The Unified Modeling Language. Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools, M. Gogolla and C. Kobryn, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2001, pp. 241–256.
- D. Varró, “A formal semantics of UML statecharts by model transition systems,” in Graph Transformation, A. Corradini, H. Ehrig, H. J. Kreowski, and G. Rozenberg, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2002, pp. 378–392.
- H. Ehrig and J. Padberg, “Graph Grammars and Petri Net Transformations,” in Lectures on Concurrency and Petri Nets, T. Kanade, J. Kittler, J. M. Kleinberg, F. Mattern, J. C. Mitchell, M. Naor, O. Nierstrasz, C. Pandu Rangan, B. Steffen, M. Sudan, D. Terzopoulos, D. Tygar, M. Y. Vardi, G. Weikum, J. Desel, W. Reisig, and G. Rozenberg, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004, vol. 3098, pp. 496–536.
- F. GADDUCCI, “Graph rewriting for the π𝜋\piitalic_π-calculus,” Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 407–437, 2007.
- A. Rutle, W. MacCaull, H. Wang, and Y. Lamo, “A metamodelling approach to behavioural modelling,” in Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Behaviour Modelling - Foundations and Applications - BM-FA ’12. Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark: ACM Press, 2012, pp. 1–10.
- A. H. Ghamarian, M. de Mol, A. Rensink, E. Zambon, and M. Zimakova, “Modelling and analysis using GROOVE,” International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 15–40, Feb. 2012.
- A. Rensink, “The GROOVE Simulator: A Tool for State Space Generation,” in Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance, T. Kanade, J. Kittler, J. M. Kleinberg, F. Mattern, J. C. Mitchell, M. Naor, O. Nierstrasz, C. Pandu Rangan, B. Steffen, M. Sudan, D. Terzopoulos, D. Tygar, M. Y. Vardi, G. Weikum, J. L. Pfaltz, M. Nagl, and B. Böhlen, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004, vol. 3062, pp. 479–485.
- A. Costa, J. Bezerra, G. Azzi, L. Rodrigues, T. R. Becker, R. G. Herdt, and R. Machado, “Verigraph: A system for specification and analysis of graph grammars,” in Formal Methods: Foundations and Applications, L. Ribeiro and T. Lecomte, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 78–94.