{"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}
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).