探索交换格式的差异——工具支持和案例研究

Juanjuan Jiang, Tarja Systä
{"title":"探索交换格式的差异——工具支持和案例研究","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
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
Exploring differences in exchange formats-tool support and case studies
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).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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