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).
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信