Abstract
AbstractThere are many repair alternatives for resolving model inconsistencies, each involving one or more model changes. Enumerating them all could overwhelm the developer because the number of possible repairs can grow exponentially. To address this problem, this paper focuses on the immediate cause of an inconsistency. By focusing on the cause, we can generate a repair tree with a subset of repair actions focusing on fixing this cause. This strategy identifies model elements that must be repaired, as opposed to additional model elements that may or may not have to be repaired later. Furthermore, our approach can provide an ownership-based filter for filtering repairs that modify model elements not owned by a developer. This filtering can further reduce the repair possibilities, aiding the developer when choosing repairs to be performed. We evaluated our approach on 24 UML models and four Java systems, using 17 UML consistency rules and 14 Java consistency rules. The evaluation data contained 39,683 inconsistencies, showing our approach’s usability as the repair trees sizes ranged from five to nine on average per model. Also, these repair trees were generated in 0.3 seconds on average, showing our approach’s scalability. Based on the results, we discuss the correctness and minimalism with regard to the cause of the inconsistency. Lastly, we evaluated the filtering mechanism, showing that it is possible to further reduce the number of repairs generated by focusing on ownership.
Funder
Austrian Science Fund
Province of Upper Austria
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Modeling and Simulation,Software
Reference55 articles.
1. Afrati, F.N., Kolaitis, P.G.: Repair checking in inconsistent databases: algorithms and complexity. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on database theory, association for computing machinery, New York, NY, USA, ICDT ’09, pp 31–41, (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1514894.1514899
2. Allaki, D., Dahchour, M., En-nouaary, A.: An AHP-based method to fix inconsistencies in UML collaborative modeling. In: 2018 IEEE 5th international congress on information science and technology (CiSt), pp 1–5, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/CIST.2018.8596468
3. Almeida da Silva, M., Mougenot, A., Blanc, X., Bendraou, R.: Towards automated inconsistency handling in design models. In: Pernici, B. (Ed.), Advanced information systems engineering, lecture notes in computer science, vol 6051, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, pp 348–362, (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13094-6_28
4. Balzer, R.: Tolerating inconsistency. In: Belady, L., Barstow, D.R., Torii, K. (eds.), ICSE, IEEE Computer Society / ACM Press, pp 158–165, (1991). http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=256664.256748
5. Bertossi, L.: Database repairs and consistent query answering: origins and further developments. In: Proceedings of the 38th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on principles of database systems, association for computing machinery, New York, NY, USA, PODS ’19, pp 48–58, (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3294052.3322190
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Engineering recommender systems for modelling languages: concept, tool and evaluation;Empirical Software Engineering;2024-06-18
2. Exploring Dependencies Among Inconsistencies to Enhance the Consistency Maintenance of Models;2024 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER);2024-03-12
3. Empowering Model Repair: A Rule-Based Approach to Graph Repair Without Side Effects;2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion (MODELS-C);2023-10-01
4. Taming Cross-Tool Traceability in the Wild;2023 IEEE 31st International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE);2023-09
5. A Formal Approach for Consistency Management in UML Models;International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering;2023-04-19