Exploring differences in exchange formats-tool support and case studies

Juanjuan Jiang, Tarja Systä
{"title":"Exploring differences in exchange formats-tool support and case studies","authors":"Juanjuan Jiang, Tarja Systä","doi":"10.1109/CSMR.2003.1192448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"XML-based markup languages are widely used, e.g., for information exchange and as file formats in various software development and exploration tools. Still, using a metalanguage, such as XML, does not guarantee tool interoperability. The particular XML-based languages used by different tools often vary. They can, none the less, be processed by the same methods and tools. In most UML-based software development tools, support for tool interoperability is provided by using OMG's XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) as a file format. However, in many cases XMI has turned out to be insufficient for storing all information from the UML models. Thus the tool vendors typically extend and/or modify the language so introduce their own XMI dialect. This, in turn, means that the tool interoperability is sacrificed. We discuss a method and a tool called DTD-compaper for exploring differences in exchange formats. DTD-compaper can, in general, be used to identify differences in grammars of XML-based languages. Further, we discuss three different case studies in which we used DTD-comparer. We first compare few commonly used XMI dialects. We further use the tool for comparing different versions of the Graph eXchange Language (GXL).","PeriodicalId":236632,"journal":{"name":"Seventh European Conference onSoftware Maintenance and Reengineering, 2003. Proceedings.","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seventh European Conference onSoftware Maintenance and Reengineering, 2003. Proceedings.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CSMR.2003.1192448","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

XML-based markup languages are widely used, e.g., for information exchange and as file formats in various software development and exploration tools. Still, using a metalanguage, such as XML, does not guarantee tool interoperability. The particular XML-based languages used by different tools often vary. They can, none the less, be processed by the same methods and tools. In most UML-based software development tools, support for tool interoperability is provided by using OMG's XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) as a file format. However, in many cases XMI has turned out to be insufficient for storing all information from the UML models. Thus the tool vendors typically extend and/or modify the language so introduce their own XMI dialect. This, in turn, means that the tool interoperability is sacrificed. We discuss a method and a tool called DTD-compaper for exploring differences in exchange formats. DTD-compaper can, in general, be used to identify differences in grammars of XML-based languages. Further, we discuss three different case studies in which we used DTD-comparer. We first compare few commonly used XMI dialects. We further use the tool for comparing different versions of the Graph eXchange Language (GXL).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索交换格式的差异——工具支持和案例研究
基于xml的标记语言被广泛使用,例如,用于信息交换和作为各种软件开发和探索工具中的文件格式。但是,使用元语言(如XML)并不能保证工具的互操作性。不同工具使用的特定的基于xml的语言通常各不相同。然而,它们可以用同样的方法和工具来处理。在大多数基于uml的软件开发工具中,通过使用OMG的XML元数据交换(XML Metadata Interchange, XML)作为文件格式来提供对工具互操作性的支持。然而,在许多情况下,xml不足以存储来自UML模型的所有信息。因此,工具供应商通常扩展和/或修改语言,以引入他们自己的xml方言。反过来,这意味着牺牲了工具的互操作性。我们讨论了一种方法和一个名为DTD-compaper的工具,用于探索交换格式的差异。一般来说,dtd比较器可用于识别基于xml的语言的语法差异。此外,我们讨论了使用DTD-comparer的三个不同的案例研究。我们首先比较几种常用的xml方言。我们进一步使用该工具来比较不同版本的图形交换语言(GXL)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Fast symbolic evaluation of C/C++ preprocessing using conditional values Fast flow analysis to compute fuzzy estimates of risk levels Software services and software maintenance Enabling legacy system accessibility by Web heterogeneous clients Towards a benchmark for Web site extractors: a call for community participation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1