Comprehensive Systems: A formal foundation for Multi-Model Consistency Management

Abstract

Abstract

Model management is a central activity in Software Engineering. The most challenging aspect of model management is to keep inter-related models consistent with each other while they evolve. As a consequence, there is a lot of scientific activity in this area, which has produced an extensive body of knowledge, methods, results and tools. The majority of these approaches, however, are limited to binary inter-model relations; i.e. the synchronisation of exactly two models. Yet, not every multi-ary relation can be factored into a family of binary relations. In this paper, we propose and investigate a novel comprehensive system construction, which is able to represent multi-ary relations among multiple models in an integrated manner and thus serves as a formal foundation for artefacts used in consistency management activities involving multiple models. The construction is based on the definition of partial commonalities among a set of models using the same language, which is used to denote the (local) models. The main theoretical results of this paper are proofs of the facts that comprehensive systems are an admissible environment for (i) applying formal means of consistency verification (diagrammatic predicate framework), (ii) performing algebraic graph transformation (weak adhesive HLR category), and (iii) that they generalise the underlying setting of graph diagrams and triple graph grammars.

References

1. ABW+19 Anjorin A, Buchmann T, Westfechtel B, Diskin Z, Ko H-S, Eramo R, Hinkel G, Samimi-Dehkordi L, Zündorf A (2019) Benchmarking bidirectional transformations: theory, implementation, application, and assessment. In: Software and systems modeling
2. AHS90 Adámek J, Herrlich H, Strecker GE (1990) Abstract and concrete categories: the joy of cats. Pure and applied mathematics. Wiley
3. AK02 Atkinson C, Kühne T (2002) Rearchitecting the UML infrastructure. ACM Trans Model Comput Simul 12(4):290–321
4. ARNRSG06 Aizenbud-Reshef N, Nolan BT, Rubin J, Shaham-Gafni Y (2006) Model traceability. IBM Syst J 45(3):515–526
5. ASB10 Atkinson C, Stoll D, Bostan P (2010) Orthographic software modeling: a practical approach to view-based development. In: Maciaszek LA, González-Pérez C, Jablonski S (eds) ENASE 2009, communications in computer and information science. Springer, Berlin, pp 206–219
6. ASCG+18 Abou-Saleh F, Cheney J, Gibbons J, McKinna J, Stevens P (2018) Introduction to bidirectional transformations. In: Gibbons J, Stevens P (eds) Bidirectional transformations: international summer school, 2016, LNCS. Springer, pp 1–28
7. BBCW19 Bruneliere H, Burger E, Cabot J, Wimmer M (2019) A feature-based survey of model view approaches. Softw Syst Model 18(3):1931–1952
8. BBDF+06 Bézivin J, Bouzitouna S, Del Fabro MD, Gervais M-P, Jouault F, Kolovos D, Kurtev I, Paige RF (2006) A canonical scheme for model composition. In: Rensink A, Warmer J (eds) Model driven architecture—foundations and applications, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 346–360
9. BCE+06 Brunet G, Chechik M, Easterbrook S, Nejati S, Niu N, Sabetzadeh M (2006) A manifesto for model merging. In: GaMMa ’06. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 5–12
10. BEEH+19 Bennani S, Ebersold S, El Hamlaoui M, Coulette B, Nassar M (2019) A collaborative decision approach for alignment of heterogeneous models. In: 2019 IEEE 28th international conference on enabling technologies: Infrastructure for collaborative enterprises (WETICE), pp 112–117. ISSN: 2641-8169
11. Ber03 Bernstein PA (2003) Applying model management to classical meta data problems. In: CIDR
12. BJV04 Bézivin J, Jouault F, Valduriez P (2004) On the need for megamodels. In: Proceedings of the OOPSLA/GPCE: best practices for model-driven software development workshop, 19th Annual ACM conference on object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications (2004), Vancouver, Canada
13. BKMW09 Boronat A, Knapp A, Meseguer J, Wirsing M (2009) What is a multi-modeling language? In: WADT 2008. Springer, Berlin pp 71–87
14. BMdlC+20 Barriga A, Mandow L, de la Cruz José LP, Rutle A, Heldal R, Iovino L (2020) A comparative study of reinforcement learning techniques to repair models. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM/IEEE international conference on model driven engineering languages and systems: companion proceedings, MODELS’20. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 1–9
15. BW90 Barr M, Wells C (1990) Category theory for computing science. Prentice Hall
16. Bé05 Bézivin J (2005) On the unification power of models. Softw Syst Model 4(2):171–188
17. CCP19 Cicchetti A, Ciccozzi F, Pierantonio A (2019) Multi-view approaches for software and system modelling: a systematic literature review. Softw Syst Model 18(6):3207–3233
18. CFH+09 Czarnecki K, Foster N, Hu Z, Lämmel R, Schürr A, Terwilliger JF (2009) Bidirectional transformations: a cross-discipline perspective. In: ICMT 2009, pp 193–204
19. CGMS15 Cheney J, Gibbons J, McKinna J, Stevens P (2015) Towards a principle of least surprise for bidirectional transformations. In: Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on bidirectional transformations co-located with software technologies: applications and fFoundations (STAF 2015), vol 1396, pp 66–80
20. CKSZ19 Cleve A, Kindler E, Stevens P, Zaytsev V(2019) Multidirectional transformations and synchronisations (Dagstuhl seminar 18491). Dagstuhl Rep 8(12):1–48
21. CLW93 Carboni A, Lack S, Walters RFC (1993) Introduction to extensive and distributive categories. J Pure Appl Algebra 84(2):145–158
22. Cou97 Courcelle B (1997) The expression of graph properties and graph transformations in monadic second-order logic. In: Rozenberg G (ed) Handbook of graph grammars and computing by graph transformation. World Scientific, River Edge, pp 313–400
23. CR96 Colmerauer A, Roussel P (1996) The birth of Prolog. In: History of programming languages—II. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 331–367
24. Dis97 Diskin Z (1997) Towards algebraic graph-based model theory for computer science. Bull Symb Logic 3:144–145
25. DKL19 Diskin Z, König H, Lawford M (2019) Multiple model synchronization with multiary delta lenses with amendment andK-Putput. Form Aspects Comput 31(5):611–640
26. DKPF09 Drivalos N, Kolovos DS, Paige RF, Fernandes KJ (2009) Engineering a DSL for software traceability. In: Gašević D, Lämmel R, Van Wyk E (eds) Software language engineering, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 151–167
27. dLG10 de Lara J, Guerra E (2010) Deep meta-modelling with MetaDepth. In: Vitek J (ed), Objects, models, components, patterns, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–20
28. dLGKH18 de Lara J, Guerra E, Kienzle J, Hattab Y (2018) Facet-oriented modelling: open objects for model-driven engineering. In: SLE 2018. Association for Computing Machinery, Boston, MA, USA, pp 147–159
29. DW07 Diskin Z, Wolter U (2007) A diagrammatic logic for object-oriented visual modeling. In: ACCAT ’07, pp 19–41
30. DXC11 Diskin Z, Xiong Y, Czarnecki K (2011) Specifying Overlaps of heterogeneous models for global consistency checking. In: MDI@MODELS 2010, pp 165–179
31. EEE+07 Ehrig H, Ehrig K, Ermel C, Hermann F, Taentzer G (2007) Information preserving bidirectional model transformations. In: Dwyer MB, Lopes A (eds) Fundamental approaches to software engineering, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 72–86
32. EEH08 Ehrig H, Ehrig K, Hermann F (2008) From model transformation to model integration based on the algebraic approach to triple graph grammars. Electron Commun EASST 10:65
33. EEPT06 Ehrig H, Ehrig K, Prange U, Taentzer G (2006) Fundamentals of algebraic graph transformation. Springer
34. Egy07 Egyed A (2007) Fixing inconsistencies in UML design models. In: Proceedings—international conference on software engineering, pp 292–301
35. EHHS00 Engels G, Hausmann JH, Heckel R, Sauer S (2000) Dynamic meta modeling: a graphical approach to the operational semantics of behavioral diagrams in UML. In: Andy E, Stuart K, Bran S (eds) UML 2000—the unified modeling language, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 323–337
36. EMM+12 Eramo R, Malavolta I, Muccini H, Pelliccione P, Pierantonio A (2012) A model-driven approach to automate the propagation of changes among architecture description languages. Softw Syst Model 11(1):29–53
37. EP06 Ehrig H, Prange U (2006) Weak adhesive high-level replacement categories and systems: a unifying framework for graph and petri net transformations. In: Futatsugi K, Jouannaud J-P, Meseguer J (eds) Algebra, meaning, and computation: essays dedicated to Joseph A. Goguen on the Occasion of his 65th birthday, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 235–251
38. EPS73 Ehrig H, Pfender M, Schneider HJ (O1973) Graph-grammars: an algebraic approach. In: 14th Annual symposium on switching and automata theory (swat 1973), pp 167–180
39. ES13 Euzenat J, Shvaiko P (2013) Ontology matching, 2 edn. Springer, Berlin
40. FGH+93 Finkelstein A, Gabbay D, Hunter A, Kramer J, Nuseibeh B (1993) Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications. In: Sommerville I, Paul M (eds) Software engineering—ESEC’93, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 84–99
41. FGM+07 Foster JN, Greenwald MB, Moore JT, Pierce BC, Schmitt A (2007) Combinators for bidirectional tree transformations: a linguistic approach to the view-update problem. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 29(3):6
42. FKM+20 Fritsche L, Kosiol J, Möller A, Schürr A, Taentzer G (2020) A precedence-driven approach for concurrent model synchronization scenarios using triple graph grammars. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on software language engineering. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 39–55
43. FKN+92 Finkelstein A, Kramer J, Nuseibeh B, Finkelstein L, Goedicke M (1992) Viewpoints: a framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 2(1):31–57
44. FKWVH19 Feldmann S, Kernschmidt K, Wimmer M, Vogel-Heuser B (2019) Managing inter-model inconsistencies in model-based systems engineering: application in automated production systems engineering. J Syst Softw 153:105–134
45. FN05 Favre J-M, NGuyen T (2005) Towards a megamodel to model software evolution through transformations. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 127(3):59–74
46. FST96 Finkelstein A, Spanoudakis G, Till D (1996) Managing interference. In: Joint proceedings of the second international software architecture workshop (ISAW-2) and international workshop on multiple perspectives in software development (viewpoints’96) on SIGSOFT’96 Workshops, ISAW’96. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 172–174
47. GBB12 Goldschmidt T, Becker S, Burger E (2012) Towards a tool-oriented taxonomy of view-based modelling. In: Sinz E, Schürr A (eds) Modellierung 2012. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., pp 59–74. Accepted 14 Nov 2018. T09:41:29Z ISSN: 1617–5468
48. GdLKP10 Guerra E, de Lara J, Kolovos DS, Paige RF (2010) Inter-modelling: from theory to practice. In: Petriu DC, Rouquette N, Haugen Ø (eds) MODELS’10, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 376–391
49. GHJV95 Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, Vlissides J (1995) Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston
50. GHL10 Giese H, Hildebrandt S, Lambers L (2010) Toward bridging the gap between formal semantics and implementation of triple graph grammars. In: Validation 2010 workshop on model-driven engineering, verification, pp 19–24
51. Gog73 Goguen JA (1973) Categorical foundations for general systems theory. In: Pichler F, Trappl R (eds) Advances in cybernetics and systems research, pp 121–130. Transcripta Books
52. Gol06 Goldblatt R (2006) Topoi: the categorial analysis of logic. Dover, revised edition
53. GW09 Giese H, Wagner R (2009) From model transformation to incremental bidirectional model synchronization. Softw Syst Model 8(1):21–43
54. HEEO12 Hermann F, Ehrig H, Ermel C, Orejas F (2012) Concurrent model synchronization with conflict resolution based on triple graph grammars. In: de Lara J, Zisman A (eds) FASE 2012, Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 178–193
55. Hei10a Heindel T (2010) A category theoretical approach to the concurrent semantics of rewriting: adhesive categories and related concepts. PhD thesis, University of Duisburg-Essen
56. Hei10b Heindel T (2010) Hereditary pushouts reconsidered. In: Ehrig H, Rensink A, Rozenberg G, Schürr A (eds) Graph transformations, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 250–265
57. HEO+11 Hermann F, Ehrig H, Orejas F, Czarnecki K, Diskin Z, Xiong Y (2011) Correctness of model synchronization based on triple graph grammar. In: Whittle J, Clark T, Kühne T (eds) MODELS 2011. Springer, Berlin pp 668–682
58. HP09 Habel A, Pennemann K-H (2009) Correctness of high-level transformation systems relative to nested conditions $†$. Math Struct Comput Sci 19(2):245–296
59. HS18 Habel A, Sandmann C (2018) Graph repair by graph programs. In: Mazzara M, Ober I, Salaün G (eds) Software technologies: applications and foundations, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Cham, pp 431–446
60. ISO11 ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 7 Software and systems engineering. Iso/iec/ieee 42010:2011 - systems and software engineering—architecture description. https://www.iso.org/standard/50508.html. Accessed Dec 2011
61. Jac16 Jackson D (2016) Software abstractions: logic, language, and analysis. MIT Press
62. KD17 König H, Diskin Z (2017) Efficient consistency checking of interrelated models. In: ECMFA 2017, pp 161–178
63. KDRPP09 Kolovos DS, Di Ruscio D, Pierantonio A, Paige RF (2009) Different models for model matching: an analysis of approaches to support model differencing. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ICSE workshop on comparison and versioning of software models, CVSM’09. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 1–6
64. Ken91 Kennaway R (1991) Graph rewriting in some categories of partial morphisms. In: Ehrig H, Kreowski H-J, Rozenberg G (eds) Graph grammars and their application to computer science, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 490–504
65. KFST19 Kosiol J, Fritsche L, Schürr A, Taentzer G (2019) Adhesive subcategories of functor categories with instantiation to partial triple graphs. In: Guerra E, Orejas F (eds) Graph transformation, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 38–54
66. KG19 Klare H, Gleitze J (2019) Commonalities for preserving consistency of multiple models. In: MODELS 2019 companion, pp 371–378
67. KKL+21 Klare H, Kramer ME, Langhammer M, Werle D, Burger E, Reussner R (2021) Enabling consistency in view-based system development—the Vitruvius approach. J Syst Softw 171:110815
68. KKT13 Kehrer T, Kelter U, Taentzer G (2013) Consistency-preserving edit scripts in model versioning. In: 2013 28th IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering (ASE), pp 191–201
69. KM18 Knapp A, Mossakowski T (2018) Multi-view consistency in UML: a survey. In: Graph transformation, specifications, and nets, LNCS 10800. Springer, Cham, pp 37–60
70. KMCD19 Kienzle J, Mussbacher G, Combemale B, Deantoni J (2019) A unifying framework for homogeneous model composition. Softw Syst Model 18(5):3005–3023
71. KPP06 Kolovos DS, Paige RF, Polack FAC (2006) Merging models with the epsilon merging language (EML). In: Nierstrasz O, Whittle J, Harel D, Reggio G (eds) Model driven engineering languages and systems, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 215–229
72. KPP08 Kolovos D, Paige R, Polack F (2008) Detecting and repairing inconsistencies across heterogeneous models. In: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on software testing, verification, and validation, ICST’08. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 356–364
73. KR17 Kosiol J, Radke H (2017) Rule-based repair of emf models: formalization and correctness proof. In: GCM 2017
74. KS20 König H, Stünkel P (2020) Single pushout rewriting in comprehensive systems. In: Gadducci F, Kehrer T (eds) Graph transformation, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Cham, pp 91–108
75. Kü06 Kühne T (2006) Matters of (meta-)modeling. Softw Syst Model 5(4):369–385
76. LAS17 Leblebici E, Anjorin A, Schürr A (2017) Inter-model consistency checking using triple graph grammars and linear optimization techniques. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on fundamental approaches to software engineering—Volume 10202. Springer, New York, NY, USA, pp 191–207
77. LO14 Lambers L, Orejas F (2014) Tableau-based reasoning for graph properties. In: Giese H, König B (eds) Graph transformation, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Cham, pp 17–32
78. LS04 Lack S, Sobociński P (2004) Adhesive categories. In: Walukiewicz I (ed) Foundations of software science and computation structures, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 273–288
79. LS06 Lack S, Sobociński P (2006) Toposes are adhesive. In: Corradini A, Ehrig H, Montanari U, Ribeiro L, Rozenberg G (eds) Graph transformations, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 184–198
80. Lö93 Löwe M (1993) Algebraic approach to single-pushout graph transformation. Theor Comput Sci 109(1):181–224
81. MC99 Mandel L, Cengarle MV (1999) On the expressive power of OCL. In: Wing JM, Woodcock J, Davies J (eds) FM’99—Formal methods, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 854–874
82. MC16 Macedo N, Cunha A (2016) Least-change bidirectional model transformation with QVT-R and ATL. Softw Syst Model 15(3):783–810
83. MJC17 Macedo N, Jorge T, Cunha A (2017) A feature-based classification of model repair approaches. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 43(7):615–640
84. MWK+20 Meier J, Werner C, Klare H, Tunjic C, Aßmann U, Atkinson C, Burger E, Reussner R, Winter A (2020) Classifying approaches for constructing single underlying models. In: Hammoudi S, Pires LF, Selić B (eds) Model-driven engineering and software development, communications in computer and information science. Springer, Cham, pp 350–375
85. NEF03 Nentwich C, Emmerich W, Finkelsteiin A (2003) Consistency management with repair actions. In: ICSE’03, pp 455–464
86. NEFE03 Nentwich C, Emmerich W, Finkelsteiin A, Ellmer E (2003) Flexible consistency checking. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 12(1):28–63
87. NER01 Nuseibeh B, Easterbrook S, Russo A (2001) Making inconsistency respectable in software development. J Syst Softw 58(2):171–180
88. OBE+13 Orejas F, Boronat A, Ehrig H, Hermann F, Schölzel H (2013) On propagation-based concurrent model synchronization. Electron Commun EASST 57:66
89. Obj14 Object Management Group (2014) Business process model and notation (BPMN) v.2.0.2
90. Obj15 Object Management Group (2015) Unified modeling language (UML) v.2.4.1
91. Obj16a Object Management Group (2016) Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation (QVT) v.1.3. http://www.omg.org/spec/QVT/1.3
92. Obj16b Object Management Group (2016) Meta object facility (MOF) core specification v. 2.4.1
93. Obj19 Object Management Group (2019) Decision model and notation (DMN) v.1.2
94. OPKK18 Ohrndorf M, Pietsch C, Kelter U, Kehrer T (2018) ReVision: a tool for history-based model repair recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 40th international conference on software engineering: companion proceeedings, ICSE’18. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 105–108
95. OPN20 Orejas F, Pino E, Navarro M (2020) Incremental concurrent model synchronization using triple graph grammars. In: Wehrheim H, Cabot J (eds) Fundamental approaches to software engineering, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Cham, pp 273–293
96. Pen08 Pennemann K-H (2008) An algorithm for approximating the satisfiability problem of high-level conditions. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 213(1):75–94
97. Pie91 Pierce BC (1991) Basic category theory for computer scientists. MIT Press, Cambridge
98. PKR+09 Paige RF, Kolovos DS, Rose LM, Drivalos N, Polack FAC (2009) The design of a conceptual framework and technical infrastructure for model management language engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2009 14th IEEE international conference on engineering of complex computer systems, ICECCS’09. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 162–171
99. RB01 Rahm E, Bernstein PA (2001) A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB J 10(4):334–350
100. RC13 Rubin J, Chechik M (2013) N-way model merging. In: ESEC/FSE 2013. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 301–311
101. RE12 Reder A, Egyed A (2012) Computing repair trees for resolving inconsistencies in design models. In: 2012 Proceedings of the 27th IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering, pp 220–229
102. Roz97 Rozenberg G (1997) Handbook of graph grammars and computing by graph transformation, vol 1. World Scientific
103. RR88 Robinson E, Rosolini G (1988) Categories of partial maps. Inf Comput 79(2):95–130
104. RRLW09 Rutle A, Rossini A, Lamo Y, Wolter U (2009) A diagrammatic formalisation of MOF-based modelling languages. In: TOOLS EUROPE 2009. Springer, Berlin, pp 37–56
105. RRLW12 Rutle A, Rossini A, Lamo Y, Wolter U (2012) A formal approach to the specification and transformation of constraints in MDE. JLAMP 81(4):422–457
106. SBMP08 Steinberg D, Budinsky F, Merks E, Paternostro M (D2008) EMF: eclipse modeling framework. Pearson Education
107. Sch94 Schürr A (1994) Specification of graph translators with triple graph grammars. In: WG’94, pp 151–163
108. SDZKR18 Samimi-Dehkordi L, Zamani B, Kolahdouz-Rahimi S (2018) EVL+Strace: a novel bidirectional model transformation approach. Inf Softw Technol 100:47–72
109. Seg92 Segen JC (1992) The dictionary of modern medicine. CRC Press
110. SK03 Sendall S, Kozaczynski W (2003) Model transformation: the heart and soul of model-driven software development. IEEE Softw 20(5):42–45
111. SKLR18 Stünkel P, König H, Lamo Y, Rutle A (2018) Multimodel correspondence through inter-model constraints. In: Conference companion of the 2nd international conference on art, science, and engineering of programming, Programming’18 Companion. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 9–17
112. SKLR20 Stünkel P, König H, Lamo Y, Rutle A (2020) Towards multiple model synchronization with comprehensive systems. In: FASE 2020, volume 12076 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Cham
113. SKRL21 Stünkel P, König H, Rutle A, Lamo Y (2021) Multi-model evolution through model repair. J Obj Technol 20(1):1:1–25
114. SLO18 Schneider S, Lambers L, Orejas F (2018) Automated reasoning for attributed graph properties. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf 20(6):705–737
115. SLO19 Schneider S, Lambers L, Orejas F (2019) A logic-based incremental approach to graph repair. In: Hähnle R, van der AW (eds) Fundamental approaches to software engineering, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 151–167
116. SMBB10 Silva Marcos Aurélio AD, Mougenot A, Blanc X, Bendraou R (2010) Towards automated inconsistency handling in design models. In: Advanced information systems engineering, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 348–362
117. SNL+07 Sabetzadeh M, Nejati S, Liaskos S, Easterbrook S, Chechik M (2007) Consistency checking of conceptual models via model merging. In: RE 2007, pp 221–230
118. Ste08 Stevens P (2008) Bidirectional model transformations in QVT: semantic issues and open questions. Softw Syst Model 9(1):7
119. Ste17 Stevens P (2017) Bidirectional transformations in the large. In: MODELS 2017, pp 1–11
120. Ste20 Stevens P (2020) Connecting software build with maintaining consistency between models: towards sound, optimal, and flexible building from megamodels. Softw Syst Model 6:66
121. SZ01 Spanoudakis G, Zisman A (2001) Inconsistency management in software engineering: survey and open research issues. In: Handbook of software engineering and knowledge engineering, pp 329–380
122. TA15 Trollmann F, Albayrak S (2015) Extending model to model transformation results from triple graph grammars to multiple models. In: ICMT’15, pp 214–229
123. TA16 Trollmann F, Albayrak S (2016) Extending model synchronization results from triple graph grammars to multiple models. In: Van Gorp P, Engels G (eds) Theory and practice of model transformations, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 91–106
124. TOLR17 Taentzer G Ohrndorf M, Lamo Y, Rutle A (2017) Change-preserving model repair. In: Huisman M, Rubin J (eds) Fundamental approaches to software engineering, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 283–299
125. TvdBS20 Torres W, van den Brand MGJ, Serebrenik A (2020) A systematic literature review of cross-domain model consistency checking by model management tools. Softw Syst Model 6:56
126. UNKC08 Usman M, Nadeem A, Kim T, Cho E (2008) A survey of consistency checking techniques for UML models. In: Proceedings of the 2008 advanced software engineering and its applications, ASEA’08. IEEE Computer Society, USA, pp 57–62
127. WAF+19 Weidmann N, Anjorin A, Fritsche L Varró G, Schürr A, Leblebici E (2019) Incremental bidirectional model transformation with eMoflon: : IBeX. In: Cheney J, Ko H-S (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on bidirectional transformations co-located with the Philadelphia logic week, Bx@PLW 2019, Philadelphia, PA, USA, June 4, 2019, volume 2355 of CEUR workshop proceedings, pp 45–55. CEUR-WS.org
128. Wal92 Walters RFC (1992) Categories and computer science. Cambridge University Press, New York
129. WFA20 Weidmann N, Fritsche L, Anjorin A (2020) A search-based and fault-tolerant approach to concurrent model synchronisation. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on software language engineering. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 56–71
130. WHR14 Whittle J, Hutchinson J, Rouncefield M (2014) The state of practice in model-driven engineering. IEEE Softw 31(3):79–85
131. WK99 Warmer J, Kleppe A (1999) The object constraint language: precise modeling with UML. Addison-Wesley Longman, Boston
132. WK19 Weber JH, Kuziemsky C (2019) Pragmatic interoperability for ehealth systems: the fallback workflow patterns. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on software engineering for healthcare, SEH’19, pp 29–36, Piscataway, NJ, USA. IEEE Press. Montreal, QC, Canada
133. Wol21 Wolter U (2021) Logics of first-order constraints—a category independent approach. arXiv:2101.01944
134. WWS+17 Wille D, Wehling K, Seidl C, Pluchator M, Schaefer I (2017) Variability mining of technical architectures. In: Proceedings of the 21st international systems and software product line conference—volume A, SPLC’17, pp 39–48, New York, NY, USA. ACM, Sevilla, Spain