Guided Merging of Sequence Diagrams

  • Magdalena Widl
  • Armin Biere
  • Petra Brosch
  • Uwe Egly
  • Marijn Heule
  • Gerti Kappel
  • Martina Seidl
  • Hans Tompits
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7745)


The employment of optimistic model versioning systems allows multiple developers of a team to work independently on their local copies of a software model. The merging process towards one consolidated version can be error-prone and time-consuming when performed without any tool support. Recently, several sophisticated approaches for model merging have been presented. However, even for multi-view modeling languages like UML, which distribute the information on the modeled system over different views, these views are merged independently of each other. Hence, inconsistencies are likely to be introduced into the merged model. We suggest to solve this problem by exploiting information stored in one view as constraint for the computation of a consolidated version of another view. More specifically, we demonstrate how state machines can guide the integration of parallel changes performed on a sequence diagram. We give a concise formal description of this problem and suggest a translation to the satisfiability problem of propositional logic.


State Machine Modeling Language Sequence Diagram Eclipse Modeling Framework Action Symbol 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Project Website on Sequence Diagram Merging(September 2012),
  2. 2.
    Altmanninger, K., Brosch, P., Kappel, G., Langer, P., Seidl, M., Wieland, K., Wimmer, M.: Why Model Versioning Research is Needed!? In: Proc. MoDSE-MCCM Workshop (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barrett, S., Chalin, P., Butler, G.: Model Merging Falls Short of Software Engineering Needs. In: Proc. of the 2nd MoDSE Workshop @ MoDELS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bendix, L., Emanuelsson, P.: Requirements for Practical Model Merge – An Industrial Perspective. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 167–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bézivin, J.: On the Unification Power of Models. SoSyM 4(2), 171–188 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biere, A.: Picosat essentials. JSAT 4(2-4), 75–97 (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T.: Handbook of Sat. IOS Press (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brooks Jr., F.P.: No Silver Bullet—Essence and Accidents of Soft. Eng. Comp. 20(4) (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brosch, P., Egly, U., Gabmeyer, S., Kappel, G., Seidl, M., Tompits, H., Widl, M., Wimmer, M.: Towards Scenario-Based Testing of UML Diagrams. In: Brucker, A.D., Julliand, J. (eds.) TAP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7305, pp. 149–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brosch, P., Kappel, G., Langer, P., Seidl, M., Wieland, K., Wimmer, M.: The Past, Present, and Future of Model Versioning. In: Emerging Technologies for the Evolution and Maintenance of Software Models, ch. 15, pp. 410–443. IGI Global (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brosch, P., Langer, P., Seidl, M., Wieland, K., Wimmer, M.: Colex: A Web-based Collaborative Conflict Lexicon. In: Proc. Workshop on Model Comp. in Pract. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Büning, H., Lettmann, T.: Propositional logic. Camb. Univ. Pr. (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cicchetti, A., Di Ruscio, D., Pierantonio, A.: Managing Model Conflicts in Distributed Development. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 311–325. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Conradi, R., Westfechtel, B.: Version Models for Software Configuration Management. ACM Computing Surveys 30(2), 232–282 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Diskin, Z., Xiong, Y., Czarnecki, K.: Specifying Overlaps of Heterogeneous Models for Global Consistency Checking. In: Dingel, J., Solberg, A. (eds.) MODELS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6627, pp. 165–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Egyed, A.: Instant Consistency Checking for the UML. In: Proc. of the 28th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE 2006), pp. 381–390. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    France, R.B., Evans, A., Lano, K., Rumpe, B.: The UML as a Formal Modeling Notation. Computer Standards & Interfaces 19(7), 325–334 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gerth, C., Küster, J., Luckey, M., Engels, G.: Detection and Resolution of Conflicting Change Operations in Version Management of Process Models. In: SoSym, pp. 1–19 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S., Zave, P.: Matching and Merging of Statecharts Specifications. In: Proc. ICSE 2007, pp. 54–64. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    OMG. Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure V2.4.1 (August 2011),
  21. 21.
    Parnas, D.: Software Engineering or Methods for the Multi-Person Construction of Multi-Version Programs. In: Hackl, C.E. (ed.) IBM 1974. LNCS, vol. 23, pp. 225–235. Springer, Heidelberg (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prasad, M.R., Biere, A., Gupta, A.: A Survey of Recent Advances in SAT-based Formal Verification. STTT 7(2), 156–173 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sabetzadeh, M., Nejati, S., Liaskos, S., Easterbrook, S.M., Chechik, M.: Consistency checking of conceptual models via model merging. In: Proc. RE 2007. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tseitin, G.: On the Complexity of Derivation in Propositional Calculus. Studies in Constructive Mathematics and Mathematical Logic 2(115-125), 10–13 (1968)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tsiolakis, A.: Integrating Model Information in UML Sequence Diagrams. In: Proc. Worksh. ICALP 2001. El. Notes in Theor. Comp. Sc, vol. 50, pp. 268–276. Elsevier (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Der Straeten, R., Pinna Puissant, J., Mens, T.: Assessing the Kodkod Model Finder for Resolving Model Inconsistencies. In: France, R.B., Kuester, J.M., Bordbar, B., Paige, R.F. (eds.) ECMFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6698, pp. 69–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Varró, D.: Automated Formal Verification of Visual Modeling Languages by Model Checking. SoSyM 3(2), 85–113 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Westfechtel, B.: A Formal Approach to Three-way Merging of EMF Models. In: Proc. of the 1st Int. Workshop on Model Comparison in Practice @ TOOLS 2010, pp. 31–41. ACM (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magdalena Widl
    • 1
  • Armin Biere
    • 3
  • Petra Brosch
    • 2
  • Uwe Egly
    • 1
  • Marijn Heule
    • 4
  • Gerti Kappel
    • 2
  • Martina Seidl
    • 3
  • Hans Tompits
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information SystemsVienna University of TechnologyAustria
  2. 2.Business Informatics GroupVienna University of TechnologyAustria
  3. 3.Institute for Formal Models and VerificationJohannes Kepler UniversityAustria
  4. 4.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TexasAustinUnited States

Personalised recommendations