Textbook Fundamental Approaches To Software Engineering Alessandra Russo Ebook All Chapter PDF

Fundamental Approaches to Software
Engineering Alessandra Russo

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/fundamental-approaches-to-software-engineering-ale
ssandra-russo/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering 1st

Edition Esther Guerra
https://textbookfull.com/product/fundamental-approaches-to-
software-engineering-1st-edition-esther-guerra/
Software Engineering Modern Approaches Eric J. Braude
https://textbookfull.com/product/software-engineering-modern-
approaches-eric-j-braude/
Fundamental Approaches to Screen Abnormalities in

Drosophila Monalisa Mishra
screen-abnormalities-in-drosophila-monalisa-mishra/
Engineering Software Products: An Introduction to

Modern Software Engineering 1st Edition Ian Sommerville
https://textbookfull.com/product/engineering-software-products-
an-introduction-to-modern-software-engineering-1st-edition-ian-
sommerville/
Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering 19th
International Conference FASE 2016 Held as Part of the
European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of
Software ETAPS 2016 Eindhoven The Netherlands April 2 8
2016 Proceedings 1st Edition Perdita Stevens
software-engineering-19th-international-conference-
fase-2016-held-as-part-of-the-european-joint-conferences-on-
theory-and-practice-of-software-etaps-2016-eindhoven-the-nether/
Statistics For The Behavioural Sciences An Introduction

To Frequentist And Bayesian Approaches 2nd Edition
Riccardo Russo
https://textbookfull.com/product/statistics-for-the-behavioural-
sciences-an-introduction-to-frequentist-and-bayesian-
approaches-2nd-edition-riccardo-russo/
Introduction to software engineering Second Edition

Leach
https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-software-
engineering-second-edition-leach/
Electroreception Fundamental Insights from Comparative

Approaches Bruce A. Carlson
https://textbookfull.com/product/electroreception-fundamental-
insights-from-comparative-approaches-bruce-a-carlson/
Introduction to Software Engineering 2nd Edition Ronald

J. Leach
https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-software-
engineering-2nd-edition-ronald-j-leach/
Alessandra Russo
Andy Schürr (Eds.)
ARCoSS
LNCS 10802
Fundamental Approaches
to Software Engineering
21st International Conference, FASE 2018
Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences
on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2018
Thessaloniki, Greece, April 14–20, 2018, Proceedings
Lecture Notes in Computer Science 10802
Commenced Publication in 1973
Founding and Former Series Editors:
Gerhard Goos, Juris Hartmanis, and Jan van Leeuwen
Editorial Board
David Hutchison, UK Takeo Kanade, USA
Josef Kittler, UK Jon M. Kleinberg, USA
Friedemann Mattern, Switzerland John C. Mitchell, USA
Moni Naor, Israel C. Pandu Rangan, India
Bernhard Steffen, Germany Demetri Terzopoulos, USA
Doug Tygar, USA Gerhard Weikum, Germany
Advanced Research in Computing and Software Science

Subline of Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Subline Series Editors

Giorgio Ausiello, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Italy
Vladimiro Sassone, University of Southampton, UK
Subline Advisory Board

Susanne Albers, TU Munich, Germany
Benjamin C. Pierce, University of Pennsylvania, USA
Bernhard Steffen, University of Dortmund, Germany
Deng Xiaotie, City University of Hong Kong
Jeannette M. Wing, Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7407
Alessandra Russo Andy Schürr (Eds.)
•
Fundamental Approaches
to Software Engineering
21st International Conference, FASE 2018
Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences
on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2018
Thessaloniki, Greece, April 14–20, 2018
Proceedings
Editors
Alessandra Russo Andy Schürr
Imperial College London TU Darmstadt
London Darmstadt
UK Germany
ISSN 0302-9743 ISSN 1611-3349 (electronic)

Lecture Notes in Computer Science
ISBN 978-3-319-89362-4 ISBN 978-3-319-89363-1 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89363-1
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018937400
LNCS Sublibrary: SL1 – Theoretical Computer Science and General Issues
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018. This book is an open access publication.
Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution
and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and
the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons license,
unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative
Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use,
you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are
believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors
give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or
omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer International Publishing AG
part of Springer Nature
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
ETAPS Foreword
Welcome to the proceedings of ETAPS 2018! After a somewhat coldish ETAPS 2017
in Uppsala in the north, ETAPS this year took place in Thessaloniki, Greece. I am
happy to announce that this is the first ETAPS with gold open access proceedings. This
means that all papers are accessible by anyone for free.
ETAPS 2018 was the 21st instance of the European Joint Conferences on Theory
and Practice of Software. ETAPS is an annual federated conference established in
1998, and consists of five conferences: ESOP, FASE, FoSSaCS, TACAS, and POST.
Each conference has its own Program Committee (PC) and its own Steering Com-
mittee. The conferences cover various aspects of software systems, ranging from
theoretical computer science to foundations to programming language developments,
analysis tools, formal approaches to software engineering, and security. Organizing
these conferences in a coherent, highly synchronized conference program facilitates
participation in an exciting event, offering attendees the possibility to meet many
researchers working in different directions in the field, and to easily attend talks of
different conferences. Before and after the main conference, numerous satellite work-
shops take place and attract many researchers from all over the globe.
ETAPS 2018 received 479 submissions in total, 144 of which were accepted,
yielding an overall acceptance rate of 30%. I thank all the authors for their interest in
ETAPS, all the reviewers for their peer reviewing efforts, the PC members for their
contributions, and in particular the PC (co-)chairs for their hard work in running this
entire intensive process. Last but not least, my congratulations to all authors of the
accepted papers!
ETAPS 2018 was enriched by the unifying invited speaker Martin Abadi (Google
Brain, USA) and the conference-specific invited speakers (FASE) Pamela Zave (AT &
T Labs, USA), (POST) Benjamin C. Pierce (University of Pennsylvania, USA), and
(ESOP) Derek Dreyer (Max Planck Institute for Software Systems, Germany). Invited
tutorials were provided by Armin Biere (Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria) on
modern SAT solving and Fabio Somenzi (University of Colorado, Boulder, USA) on
hardware verification. My sincere thanks to all these speakers for their inspiring and
interesting talks!
ETAPS 2018 took place in Thessaloniki, Greece, and was organised by the
Department of Informatics of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The university
was founded in 1925 and currently has around 75,000 students; it is the largest uni-
versity in Greece. ETAPS 2018 was further supported by the following associations
and societies: ETAPS e.V., EATCS (European Association for Theoretical Computer
Science), EAPLS (European Association for Programming Languages and Systems),
and EASST (European Association of Software Science and Technology). The local
organization team consisted of Panagiotis Katsaros (general chair), Ioannis Stamelos,
VI ETAPS Foreword
Lefteris Angelis, George Rahonis, Nick Bassiliades, Alexander Chatzigeorgiou, Ezio

Bartocci, Simon Bliudze, Emmanouela Stachtiari, Kyriakos Georgiadis, and Petros
Stratis (EasyConferences).
The overall planning for ETAPS is the main responsibility of the Steering Com-
mittee, and in particular of its Executive Board. The ETAPS Steering Committee
consists of an Executive Board and representatives of the individual ETAPS confer-
ences, as well as representatives of EATCS, EAPLS, and EASST. The Executive
Board consists of Gilles Barthe (Madrid), Holger Hermanns (Saarbrücken), Joost-Pieter
Katoen (chair, Aachen and Twente), Gerald Lüttgen (Bamberg), Vladimiro Sassone
(Southampton), Tarmo Uustalu (Tallinn), and Lenore Zuck (Chicago). Other members
of the Steering Committee are: Wil van der Aalst (Aachen), Parosh Abdulla (Uppsala),
Amal Ahmed (Boston), Christel Baier (Dresden), Lujo Bauer (Pittsburgh), Dirk Beyer
(Munich), Mikolaj Bojanczyk (Warsaw), Luis Caires (Lisbon), Jurriaan Hage
(Utrecht), Rainer Hähnle (Darmstadt), Reiko Heckel (Leicester), Marieke Huisman
(Twente), Panagiotis Katsaros (Thessaloniki), Ralf Küsters (Stuttgart), Ugo Dal Lago
(Bologna), Kim G. Larsen (Aalborg), Matteo Maffei (Vienna), Tiziana Margaria
(Limerick), Flemming Nielson (Copenhagen), Catuscia Palamidessi (Palaiseau),
Andrew M. Pitts (Cambridge), Alessandra Russo (London), Dave Sands (Göteborg),
Don Sannella (Edinburgh), Andy Schürr (Darmstadt), Alex Simpson (Ljubljana),
Gabriele Taentzer (Marburg), Peter Thiemann (Freiburg), Jan Vitek (Prague), Tomas
Vojnar (Brno), and Lijun Zhang (Beijing).
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all speakers, attendees, organizers
of the satellite workshops, and Springer for their support. I hope you all enjoy the
proceedings of ETAPS 2018. Finally, a big thanks to Panagiotis and his local orga-
nization team for all their enormous efforts that led to a fantastic ETAPS in
Thessaloniki!
February 2018 Joost-Pieter Katoen

Preface
This book contains the proceedings of FASE 2018, the 21th International Conference
on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, held in Thessaloniki, Greece, in
April 2018, as part of the annual European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of
Software (ETAPS 2018).
As usual for FASE, the contributions combine the development of conceptual and
methodological advances with their formal foundations, tool support, and evaluation on
realistic or pragmatic cases. As a result, the volume contains regular research papers
that cover a wide range of topics, such as program and system analysis, model
transformations, configuration and synthesis, graph modeling and transformation,
software product lines, test selection, as well as learning and inference. We hope that
the community will find this volume engaging and worth reading.
The contributions included have been carefully selected. For the third time, FASE
used a double-blind review process, as the past two years’ experiments were considered
valuable by authors and worth the additional effort of anonymizing the papers. We
received 77 abstract submissions from 24 different countries, from which 63 full-paper
submissions materialized. All papers were reviewed by three experts in the field, and
after intense discussion, only 19 were accepted, giving an acceptance rate of 30%.
We thank the ETAPS 2018 general chair Katsaros Panagiotis, the ETAPS orga-
nizers, Ioannis Stamelos, Lefteris Angelis, and George Rahonis, the ETAPS publicity
chairs, Ezio Bartocci and Simon Bliudze, as well as the ETAPS SC chair, Joost-Pieter
Katoen, for their support during the whole process. We thank all the authors for their
hard work and willingness to contribute. Last but not least, we thank all the Program
Committee members and external reviewers, who invested time and effort in the
selection process to ensure the scientific quality of the program.
February 2018 Alessandra Russo

Andy Schürr
Organization
Program Committee
Ruth Breu Universität Innsbruck, Austria
Yuanfang Cai Drexel University, USA
Sagar Chaki Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Hana Chockler King’s College London, UK
Ewen Denney NASA Ames, USA
Stefania Gnesi ISTI-CNR, Italy
Dilian Gurov Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Sweden
Zhenjiang Hu National Institute for Informatics, Japan
Reiner Hähnle Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany
Valerie Issarny Inria, France
Einar Broch Johnsen University of Oslo, Norway
Gerti Kappel Vienna University of Technology, Austria
Ekkart Kindler Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
Kim Mens Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Fernando Orejas Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain
Fabrizio Pastore University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Arend Rensink Universiteit Twente, The Netherlands
Leila Ribeiro Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Julia Rubin The University of British Columbia, USA
Bernhard Rumpe RWTH Aachen, Germany
Alessandra Russo Imperial College London, UK
Rick Salay University of Toronto, Canada
Ina Schaefer Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany
Andy Schürr Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany
Marjan Sirjani Reykjavik University, Iceland
Wil Van der Aalst RWTH Aachen, Germany
Daniel Varro Budapest University of Technology and Economics,
Hungary
Virginie Wiels ONERA/DTIM, France
Yingfei Xiong Peking University, China
Didar Zowghi University of Technology Sydney, Australia
X Organization
Additional Reviewers
Adam, Kai Lochau, Malte

Ahmed, Khaled E. Markthaler, Matthias
Alrajeh, Dalal Mauro, Jacopo
Auer, Florian Melgratti, Hernan
Basile, Davide Micskei, Zoltan
Bergmann, Gábor Mohaqeqi, Morteza
Bill, Robert Mousavi, Mohamad
Bubel, Richard Nesic, Damir
Búr, Márton Nieke, Michael
Chen, Yifan Pun, Ka I.
Cicchetti, Antonio Saake, Gunter
de Vink, Erik Sauerwein, Clemens
Dulay, Naranker Schlatte, Rudolf
Feng, Qiong Schuster, Sven
Guimaraes, Everton Seidl, Martina
Haeusler, Martin Semeráth, Oszkár
Haglund, Jonas Shaver, Chris
Haubrich, Olga Shumeiko, Igor
Herda, Mihai Steffen, Martin
Hillemacher, Steffen Steinebach, Martin
Huber, Michael Steinhöfel, Dominic
Jafari, Ali Stolz, Volker
Jiang, Jiajun Tapia Tarifa, Silvia Lizeth
Johansen, Christian Ter Beek, Maurice H.
Joosten, Sebastiaan Tiezzi, Francesco
Kamburjan, Eduard Varga, Simon
Kautz, Oliver Wally, Bernhard
Khamespanah, Ehsan Wang, Bo
Knüppel, Alexander Weckesser, Markus
Laurent, Nicolas Whiteside, Iain
Leblebici, Erhan Wimmer, Manuel
Liang, Jingjing Wolny, Sabine
Lindner, Andreas Xiao, Lu
Lity, Sascha Yue, Ruru
Contents
Model-Based Software Development
A Formal Framework for Incremental Model Slicing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Gabriele Taentzer, Timo Kehrer, Christopher Pietsch, and Udo Kelter
Multiple Model Synchronization with Multiary Delta Lenses . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Zinovy Diskin, Harald König, and Mark Lawford
Controlling the Attack Surface of Object-Oriented Refactorings . . . . . . . . . . 38

Sebastian Ruland, Géza Kulcsár, Erhan Leblebici, Sven Peldszus,
and Malte Lochau
Effective Analysis of Attack Trees: A Model-Driven Approach. . . . . . . . . . . 56

Rajesh Kumar, Stefano Schivo, Enno Ruijters, Buǧra Mehmet Yildiz,
David Huistra, Jacco Brandt, Arend Rensink, and Mariëlle Stoelinga
Distributed Program and System Analysis
ROLA: A New Distributed Transaction Protocol and Its Formal Analysis . . . 77

Si Liu, Peter Csaba Ölveczky, Keshav Santhanam, Qi Wang,
Indranil Gupta, and José Meseguer
A Process Network Model for Reactive Streaming Software

with Deterministic Task Parallelism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Fotios Gioulekas, Peter Poplavko, Panagiotis Katsaros,
Saddek Bensalem, and Pedro Palomo
Distributed Graph Queries for Runtime Monitoring

of Cyber-Physical Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Márton Búr, Gábor Szilágyi, András Vörös,
and Dániel Varró
EventHandler-Based Analysis Framework for Web Apps

Using Dynamically Collected States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Joonyoung Park, Kwangwon Sun, and Sukyoung Ryu
Software Design and Verification
Hierarchical Specification and Verification of Architectural

Design Patterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Diego Marmsoler
XII Contents
Supporting Verification-Driven Incremental Distributed Design

of Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Claudio Menghi, Paola Spoletini, Marsha Chechik, and Carlo Ghezzi
Summarizing Software API Usage Examples

Using Clustering Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Nikolaos Katirtzis, Themistoklis Diamantopoulos, and Charles Sutton
Fast Computation of Arbitrary Control Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Jean-Christophe Léchenet, Nikolai Kosmatov, and Pascale Le Gall
Specification and Program Testing
Iterative Generation of Diverse Models for Testing Specifications

of DSL Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Oszkár Semeráth and Dániel Varró
Optimising Spectrum Based Fault Localisation for Single Fault Programs

Using Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
David Landsberg, Youcheng Sun, and Daniel Kroening
TCM: Test Case Mutation to Improve Crash Detection in Android . . . . . . . . 264

Yavuz Koroglu and Alper Sen
CRETE: A Versatile Binary-Level Concolic Testing Framework . . . . . . . . . . 281

Bo Chen, Christopher Havlicek, Zhenkun Yang, Kai Cong,
Raghudeep Kannavara, and Fei Xie
Family-Based Software Development
Abstract Family-Based Model Checking Using Modal Featured Transition

Systems: Preservation of CTLH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Aleksandar S. Dimovski
FPH: Efficient Non-commutativity Analysis of Feature-Based Systems . . . . . 319

Marsha Chechik, Ioanna Stavropoulou, Cynthia Disenfeld,
and Julia Rubin
Taming Multi-Variability of Software Product Line Transformations . . . . . . . 337

Daniel Strüber, Sven Peldzsus, and Jan Jürjens
Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

Model-Based Software Development
A Formal Framework for Incremental
Model Slicing
Gabriele Taentzer1 , Timo Kehrer2 , Christopher Pietsch3(B) ,

and Udo Kelter3
1
Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany
2
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
3
University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany
cpietsch@informatik.uni-siegen.de
Abstract. Program slicing is a technique which can determine the sim-

plest program possible that maintains the meaning of the original pro-
gram w.r.t. a slicing criterion. The concept of slicing has been transferred
to models, in particular to statecharts. In addition to the classical use
cases of slicing adopted from the field of program understanding, model
slicing is also motivated by specifying submodels of interest to be fur-
ther processed more efficiently, thus dealing with scalability issues when
working with very large models. Slices are often updated throughout spe-
cific software development tasks. Such a slice update can be performed
by creating the new slice from scratch or by incrementally updating the
existing slice. In this paper, we present a formal framework for defining
model slicers that support incremental slice updates. This framework
abstracts from the behavior of concrete slicers as well as from the concrete
model modification approach. It forms a guideline for defining incremen-
tal model slicers independent of the underlying slicer’s semantics. Incre-
mental slice updates are shown to be equivalent to non-incremental ones.
Furthermore, we present a framework instantiation based on the concept
of edit scripts defining application sequences of model transformation
rules. We implemented two concrete model slicers for this instantiation
based on the Eclipse Modeling Framework.
1 Introduction
Program slicing as introduced by Weiser [1] is a technique which determines
those parts of a program (the slice) which may affect the values of a set of
(user-)selected variables at a specific point (the slicing criterion). Since the sem-
inal work of Weiser, which calculates a slice by utilizing static data and control
flow analysis and which primarily focuses on assisting developers in debugging,
a plethora of program slicing techniques addressing a broad range of use cases
have been proposed [2].
With the advent of Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) [3], models rather than
source code play the role of primary software development artifacts. Similar use
c The Author(s) 2018
A. Russo and A. Schürr (Eds.): FASE 2018, LNCS 10802, pp. 3–20, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89363-1_1
4 G. Taentzer et al.
cases as known from program slicing must be supported for model slicing [4–6]. In
addition to classical use cases adopted from the field of program understanding,
model slicing is often motivated by scalability issues when working with very
large models [7,8], which has often been mentioned as one of the biggest obstacles
in applying MDE in practice [9,10]. Modeling frameworks such as the Eclipse
Modeling Framework (EMF) and widely-used model management tools do not
scale beyond a few tens of thousands of model elements [11], while large-scale
industrial models are considerably larger [12]. As a consequence, such models
cannot even be edited in standard model editors. Thus, the extraction of editable
submodels from a larger model is the only viable solution to support an efficient
yet independent editing of huge monolithic models [8]. Further example scenarios
in which model slices may be constructed for the sake of efficiency include model
checkers, test suite generators, etc., in order to reduce runtimes and memory
consumption.
Slice criteria are often modified during software development tasks. This
leads to corresponding slice updates (also called slice adaptations in [8]). During
a debugging session, e.g., the slicing criterion might need to be modified in order
to closer inspect different debugging hypotheses. The independent editing of
submodels is another example of this. Here, a slice created for an initial slicing
criterion can turn out to be inappropriate, most typically because additional
model elements are desired or because the slice is still too large. These slice
update scenarios have in common that the original slicing criterion is modified
and that the existing slice must be updated w.r.t. the new slicing criterion.
Model slicing is faced with two challenging requirements which do not exist or
which are of minor importance for traditional program slicers. First, the increas-
ing importance and prevalence of domain-specific modeling languages (DSMLs)
as well as a considerable number of different use cases lead to a huge number of
different concrete slicers, examples will be presented in Sect. 2. Thus, methods
for developing model slicers should abstract from a slicer’s concrete behavior
(and thus from concrete modeling languages) as far as possible. Ideally, model
slicers should be generic in the sense that the behavior of a slicer is adapt-
able with moderate configuration effort [7]. Second, rather than creating a new
slice from scratch for a modified slicing criterion, slices must often be updated
incrementally. This is indispensable for all use cases where slices are edited by
developers since otherwise these slice edits would be blindly overwritten [8]. In
addition, incremental slice updating is a desirable feature when it is more effi-
cient than creating the slice from scratch. To date, both requirements have been
insufficiently addressed in the literature.
In this paper, we present a fundamental methodology for developing model
slicers which abstract from the behavior of a concrete slicer and which support
incremental model slicing. To be independent of a concrete DSML and use cases,
we restrict ourselves to static slicing in order to support both executable and
non-executable models. We make the following contributions:
1. A formal framework for incremental model slicing which can function as a

guideline for defining adaptable and incremental model slicers (s. Sect. 3).
A Formal Framework for Incremental Model Slicing 5
This framework is based on graph-based models and model modifications and

abstracts from the behavior of concrete slicers as well as from the concrete
model modification approach. Within this framework we show that incremen-
tal slice updates are equivalent to non-incremental ones.
2. An instantiation of this formal framework where incremental model slicers
are specified by model patches. Two concrete model slicers.
2 Motivating Example
In this section we introduce a running example to illustrate two use cases of
model slicing and to motivate incremental slice updates.
Figure 1 shows an excerpt of the system model of the Barbados Car Crash
Crisis Management System (bCMS) [13]. It describes the operations of a police
and a fire department in case of a crisis situation.
Fig. 1. Excerpt of the system model of the bCMS case study [13].
The system is modeled from different viewpoints. The class diagram mod-
els the key entities and their relationships from a static point of view. A
police station coordinator (PS coordinator) and a fire station coordinator (FS
coordinator) are responsible for coordinating and synchronizing the activities
on the police and fire station during a crisis. The interaction of both coordinators
is managed by the respective system classes PSC System and FSC System which
contain several operations for, e.g., establishing the communication between the
coordinators and exchanging crisis details. The state machine diagram models
the dynamic view of the class PSC System, i.e., its runtime behavior, for send-
ing and receiving authorization credentials and crisis details to and from a FSC
System. Initially, the PSC System is in the state Idle. The establishment of the
communication can be triggered by calling the operation callFScoordinator or

reqComFSC. In the composite state Authorising the system waits for exchang-
ing the credentials of the PS and FS coordinator by calling the operation
sendPScoordinatorCredentials and authFSC, or vice versa. On entering the
composite state ExchangingCrisisDetails, details can be sent by the opera-
tion call sendPSCrisisDetails or details can be received by the operation call
crisisDetailsFSC.
Model Slicing. Model slicers are used to find parts of interest in a given model
M . These parts of M are specified by a slicing criterion, which is basically a set
of model elements or, more formally, a submodel C of M . A slicer extends C
with further model elements of M according to the purpose of the slicer.
We illustrate this with two use cases. Use case A is known as backward slicing
in state-based models [4]. Given a set of states C in a statechart M as slicing
criterion, the slicer determines all model elements which may have an effect
on states in C. For instance, using S.1.0.1 (s. gray state in Fig. 1) as slicing
criterion, the slicer recursively determines all incoming transitions and their
sources, e.g., the transition with the event sendPScoordinatorCredentials and
its source state S.1.0.0, until an initial state is reached.
The complete backward slice is indicated by the blue elements in the lower
part of Fig. 1. The example shows that our general notion of a slicing criterion
may be restricted by concrete model slicers. In this use case, the slicing criterion
must not be an arbitrary submodel of a given larger model, but a very specific
one, i.e., a set of states.
Use case B is the extraction of editable models as presented in [8]. Here,
the slicing criterion C is given by a set of requested model elements of M . The
purpose of this slicer is to find a submodel which is editable and which includes
all requested model elements. For example, if we use the blue elements in the
lower part of Fig. 1 as slicing criterion, the model slice also contains the orange
elements in the upper part of Fig. 1, namely three operations, because events of
a transitions in a statechart represent operations in the class diagram, and the
class containing these operations.
Slice Update. The slicing criterion might be updated during a development

task in order to obtain an updated slice. It is often desirable to update the
slice rather than creating the new slice from scratch, e.g., because this is more
efficient. Let us assume in use case A that the slicing criterion changes from
S.1.0.1 to S.1.1.1. The resulting model slice only differs in the contained
regions of the composite state Authorising. The upper region and its contained
elements would be removed, while the lower region and its contained elements
would be added. Next we could use the updated model slice from use case A as
slicing criterion in use case B. In the related resulting model slice, the opera-
tion sendPScoordinatorCredentials would then be replaced by the operation
authFSC.
3 Formal Framework
We have seen in the motivating example that model slicers can differ consider-
ably in their intended purpose. The formal framework we present in the following
defines the fundamental concepts for model slicing and slice updates. This frame-
work uses graph-based models and model modifications [14]. It shall serve as a
guideline how to define model slicers that support incremental slice updates.
3.1 Models as Graphs
Considering models, especially visual models, their concrete syntax is distin-

guished from their abstract one. In Fig. 1, a UML model is shown in its concrete
representation. In the following, we will reason about their underlying structure,
i.e., their abstract syntax, which can be considered as graph. The abstract syntax
of a modeling language is usually defined by a meta-model which contains the
type information about nodes and edges as well as additional constraints. We
assume that a meta-model is formalized by an attributed graph; model graphs
are defined as attributed graphs being typed over the meta-model. This typing
can be characterized by an attributed graph morphism [15]. In addition, graph
constraints [16] may be used to specify additional requirements. Due to space
limitations, we do not formalize constraints in this paper.
Definition 1 (Typed model graph and morphism). Given two attributed

graphs M and M M , called model and meta-model, the typed model (graph) of
M is defined as M T = (M, typeM ) with typeM : M → M M being an attributed
graph morphism, called typing morphism1 . Given two typed models M and N ,
an attributed graph morphism f : M → N is called typed model morphism if
typeN ◦ f = typeM .
Fig. 2. Excerpt of a typed model graph.
Example 1 (Typed model graph). The left-hand side of Fig. 2 shows the model
graph of an excerpt from the model depicted in Fig. 1. The model graph is
1
In the following, we usually omit the adjective “attributed”.
typed over the meta-model depicted on the right-hand side of Fig. 2. It shows a
simplified excerpt of the UML meta-model. Every node (and edge) of the model
graph is mapped onto a node or edge of the type graph by the graph morphism
type : M → M M .
Typed models and morphisms as defined above form the category AGraphsAT G
in [15]. It has various properties since it is an adhesive HLR category using a class
M of injective graph morphisms with isomorphic data mapping, it has pushouts
and pullbacks where at least one morphism is in M. These constructions can
be considered as generalized union and intersection of models being defined
component-wise on nodes and edges such that they are structure-compatible.
These constructions are used to define the formal framework.
3.2 Model Modifications
If we do not want to go into any details of model transformation approaches,

the temporal change of models is roughly specified by model modifications. Each
model modification describes the original model, an intermediate one after hav-
ing performed all intended element deletions, and the resulting model after hav-
ing performed all element additions.
Definition 2 (Model modification). Given two models M1 and M2 , a

(direct) model modification M1 =⇒ M2 is a span of injective morphisms
m1 m2
M1 ←− Ms −→ M2 .
m
11 m
12 m
22 23m
1. Two model modifications M1 ←− M12 −→ M2 and M2 ←− M23 −→ M3
m13 m33
are concatenated to model modification M1 ←− M13 −→ M3 with (m13 , m33 )
being the pullback of m12 and m22 (intersecting M12 and M23 ).
m1 m2 p1
2. Given two direct model modifications m : M1 ←− Ms −→ M2 and p : P1 ←−
p2
Ps −→ P2 , p can be embedded into m, written e : p → m, if there are
injective morphisms (also called embeddings) e1 : P1 → M1 , es : Ps → Ms ,
and e2 : P2 → M2 with e1 ◦ p1 = m1 ◦ es and e2 ◦ p2 = m2 ◦ es .
3. A sequence M0 =⇒ M1 =⇒ . . . =⇒ Mn of direct model modifications is called
∗
model modification and is denoted by M0 =⇒ Mn .
4. There are five special kinds of model modifications:
idM idM
(a) Model modification M ←− M −→ M is called identical.
(b) Model modification ∅ ←− ∅ −→ ∅ is called empty.
(c) Model modification ∅ ←− ∅ −→ M is called model creation.
(d) Model modification M ←− ∅ −→ ∅ is called model deletion.
m2 m1 m1 m2
(e) M2 ←− Ms −→ M1 is called inverse modification to M1 ←− Ms −→ M2 .
In a direct model modification, model Ms characterizes an intermediate

model where all deletion actions have been performed but nothing has been
added yet. To this end, Ms is the intersection of M1 and M2 .
Fig. 3. Excerpt of a model modification
Example 2 (Direct model modification). Figure 3 shows a model modification

using our running example. While Fig. 3(a) focuses on the concrete model syn-
tax, Fig. 3(b) shows the changing abstract syntax graph. Figure 3(a) depicts
an excerpt of the composite state Authorising. The red transition is deleted
while the green state and transitions are created. The model modification
m1 m2
m : M1 ←− Ms −→ M2 is illustrated in Fig. 3(b). The red elements represent
the set of nodes (and edges) M1 \ m1 (Ms ) to be deleted. The set M2 \ m2 (Ms )
describing the nodes (and edges) to be created is illustrated by the green ele-
ments. All other nodes (and edges) represent the intermediate model Ms .
The double pushout approach to graph transformation [15] is a special kind

of model modification:
Definition 3 (Rule application). Given a model G and a model modification

l r
r : L ←− K −→ R, called rule, with injective morphism m : L → G, called
match, the rule application G =⇒r,m H is defined by the following two pushouts:
Model H is constructed in two passes: (1)

L K R
D := G \ m(L \ l(K)), i.e., erase all model
m (P O1) (P O2) m elements that are to be deleted; (2) H :=
D ∪ m (R \ r(K)) such that a new copy of
G D H all model elements that are to be created is
added.
Note that the first pushout above exists if G\m(L\l(K)) does not yield dangling
edges [15]. It is obvious that the result of a rule application G =⇒r H is a direct
g h
model modification G ←− D −→ H.
3.3 Model Slicing
In general, a model slice is an interesting part of a model comprising a given

slicing criterion. It is up to a concrete slicing definition to specify which model
parts are of interest.
Definition 4 (Model slice). Given a model M and a slicing criterion C with

a morphism c : C → M . A model slice S = Slice(M, c) is a model S such that
there are two morphisms m : S → M and e : C → S with m ◦ e = c.
Note that each model slice S = Slice(M, c) induces a model modification

id e
C ←−
C
C −→ S.
Fig. 4. Excerpt of two model slices
Example 3 (Model slice). Figure 4 depicts an excerpt of the model graph of

M depicted in Fig. 1 and the two slices Sback = Slice(M, cback ) and Sedit =
Slice(M, cedit ). Sback is the backward slice as informally described in Sect. 2.
Cback = {S.1.0.1} is the first slice criterion. The embedding cback (Cback ) is rep-
resented by the gray-filled element while embedding mback (Sback ) is represented
by the blue-bordered elements. Model eback (Cback ) is illustrated by the gray-filled
state having a blue border and Sback \ eback (Cback ) by the green-filled elements
having a blue border.
Let Sback be the slicing criterion for the slice Sedit , i.e. Cedit = Sback and
cedit (Cedit ) = mback (Sback ). Sedit is the extracted editable submodel introduced
in Sect. 2 by use case B. Its embedding medit (Sedit ) is represented by the blue and
orange-bordered elements. Model eedit (Cedit ) is illustrated by the blue-bordered
elements and Sedit \ eedit (Cedit ) by the green-filled elements having an orange
border.
3.4 Incremental Slice Update

Throughout working with a model slice, it might happen that the slice crite-
rion has to be modified. The update of the corresponding model slice can be
performed incrementally. Actually, modifying slice criteria can happen rather
frequently in practice by, e.g., editing independent submodels of a large model
in cooperative work.
Definition 5 (Slice update construction). Given a model slice S1 =

c1 c2
Slice(M, C1 → M ) and a direct model modification c = C1 ←− Cs −→ C2 ,
slice S2 = Slice(M, C2 → M ) can be constructed as follows:
idC e
1. Given slice S1 we deduce the model modification C1 ←−1 C1 −→
1
S1 and take
1 e idC
its inverse modification: S1 ←− C1 −→1 C1 .
2. Then we take the given model modification c for the slice criterion.
idC e
3. And finally we take the model modification C2 ←−2 C2 −→
2
S2 induced by slice
S2 .
All model modifications are concatenated yielding the direct model modification
e1 ◦c1 e2 ◦c2
S1 ←− Cs −→ S2 called slice update construction (see also Fig. 6).
Example 4 (Slice update example). Figure 5 illustrates a slice update construc-

tion with Sedit = Slice(M, Cedit → M ) being the extracted submodel of our pre-
cedit
vious example illustrated by the red-dashed box. The modification c : Cedit ←−
cedit
Cs −→ Cedit of the slicing criterion is depicted by the gray-filled elements. The
red-bordered elements represent the set Cs \cedit (Cedit ) of elements removed from
the slicing criterion. The green-bordered elements form the set Cs \ cedit (Cedit )
of elements added to the slicing criterion. Sedit = Slice(M, Cedit → M ) is
the extracted submodel represented by the green-dashed box. Consequently, the
slice is updated by deleting all elements in Sedit \ eedit (cedit (Cs )), represented by
the red-bordered and red- and white-filled elements, and adding all elements in
Sedit \eedit (cedit (Cs )), represented by the green-bordered and green- and white-
filled elements. Note that the white-filled elements are removed and added again.
This motivated us to consider incremental slice updates defined below.
Fig. 5. Excerpt of an (incremental) slice update.

Definition 6 (Incremental slice update). Given M and C1 → M1 as in

c1 c2
Definition 4 as well as a direct model modification C1 ←− Cs −→ C2 , model
slice S1 = Slice(M, C1 → M ) is incrementally updated to model slice S2 =
s1 s2
Slice(M, C2 → M ) yielding a direct model modification S1 ←− Ss −→ S2 , called
incremental slice update from S1 to S2 , with s1 and s2 being the pullback of
m1 : S1 → M and m2 : S2 → M (see also Fig. 6).
Example 5 (Incremental slice update example). Given Sedit and Sedit of our
sedit sedit
previous example. Furthermore, given the model modification Sedit ←− Ss −→
Sedit whereby Ss is isomorphic to the intersection of Sedit and Sedit in M ,
i.e. ms : Ss → medit (Sedit ) ∩ medit (Sedit ) with ms being an isomorphism due
to the pullback construction. Ss is illustrated by the elements contained in the
intersection of the red- and green-dashed box in Fig. 5. In contrast to the slice
update construction of the previous example the white-filled elements are not
affected by the incremental slice update.
c1 c2 Ideally, the slice update construction in
C1 Cs C2
Definition 5 should not yield a different
e1 es e2 update than the incremental one. However,
this is not the case in general since the incre-
s1 s2
S1 Ss S2 mental update keeps as many model ele-
ments as possible in contrast to the update
m1 ms m2
construction in Definition 5 In any case,
both update constructions should be com-
M patible with each other, i.e., should be in an
embedding relation, as stated on the follow-
Fig. 6. Incremental slice update ing proposition.
Proposition 1 (Compatibility of slice update constructions). Given M
c1 c2
and C1 as in Definition 4 as well as a direct model modification C1 ←− Cs −→
C2 , the model modification resulting from the slice update construction in Def-
inition 5 can be embedded into the incremental slice update from S1 to S2 (see
also Fig. 6).
1 s 2 s
Proof idea: Given an incremental slice update S1 ←− Ss −→ S2 , it is the
pullback of m1 : S1 → M and m2 : S2 → M . The slice update construction
yields m1 ◦ e1 ◦ c1 = m2 ◦ e2 ◦ c2 . Due to pullback properties there is a unique
embedding e : Cs → Ss with s1 ◦ e = e1 ◦ c1 and s2 ◦ e = e2 ◦ c2 .2
4 Instantiation of the Formal Framework

In this section, we present an instantiation of our formal framework which is
inspired by the model slicing tool introduced in [8]. The basic idea of the app-
roach is to create and incrementally update model slices by calculating and
applying a special form of model patches, introduced and referred to as edit
script in [17].
2
This proof idea can be elaborated to a full proof in a straight forward manner.
4.1 Edit Scripts as Refinements of Model Modifications

An edit script ΔM1 ⇒M2 specifies how to transform a model M1 into a model
M2 in a stepwise manner. Technically, this is a data structure which comprises
a set of rule applications, partially ordered by an acyclic dependency graph. Its
nodes are rule applications and its edges are dependencies between them [17].
Models are represented as typed graphs as in Definition 1, rule applications
are defined as in Definition 3. Hence, the semantics of an edit script is a set
of rule application sequences taking all possible orderings of rule applications
into account. Each sequence can be condensed into the application of one rule
following the concurrent rule construction in, e.g., [15]. Hence, an edit script
m1 m2
ΔM1 ⇒M2 induces a set of model modifications of the form M1 ←− Ms −→ M2 .
Given two models M1 and M2 as well as a set R of transformation rules for
this type of models, edit scripts are calculated in two basic steps [17]:
First, the corresponding elements in M1 and M2 are calculated using a model
matcher [18]. A basic requirement is that such a matching can be formally rep-
resented as a (partial) injective morphism c : M1 → M2 . If so, the matching
⊇ 2m
morphism c yields a unique model modification m : M1 ←− Ms −→ M2 (up to
isomorphism) with m2 = c|Ms . This means that Ms always has to be a graph.
Second, an edit script is derived. Elementary model changes can be directly
derived from a model matching; elements in M1 and M2 which are not involved
in a correspondence can be considered as deleted and added, respectively [19].
The approach presented in [17] partitions the set of elementary changes such that
each partition represents the application of a transformation rule of the given
set R of transformation rules [20], and subsequently calculates the dependencies
between these rule applications [17], yielding an edit script ΔM1 ⇒M2 . Sequences
of rule applications of an edit script do not contain transient effects [17], i.e.,
pairs of change actions which cancel out each other (such as creating and later
deleting one and the same element). Thus, no change actions are factored out
by an edit script.
4.2 Model Slicing Through Slice-Creating Edit Scripts

Edit scripts are also used to construct new model slices. Given a model M and
a slicing criterion C, a slice-creating edit script Δ⇒S is calculated which, when
applied to the empty model , yields the resulting slice S. The basic idea to
construct Δ⇒S is to consider the model M as created by an edit script Δ⇒M
applied to the empty model and to identify a sub-script of Δ⇒M which (at
least) creates all elements of C. The slice creating edit script Δ⇒S consists of
the subgraph of the dependency graph of the model-creating edit script Δ⇒M
containing (i) all nodes which create at least one model element in C, and (ii) all
required nodes and connecting edges according to the transitive closure of the
“required” relation, which is implied by dependencies between rule applications.
Since the construction of edit scripts depends on a given set R of transfor-
mation rules, a basic applicability condition is that all possible models and all
possible slices can be created by rules available in R. Given that this condition is
satisfied, model slicing through slice-creating edit scripts indeed behaves accord-
ing to Definition 4, i.e., a slice S = Slice(M, C → M ) is obtained by applying
Δ⇒S to the empty model: The resulting slice S is a submodel of M and a super-
model of C. As we will see in Sect. 5, the behavior of a concrete model slicer and
thus its intended purpose is configured by the transformation rule set R.
4.3 Incremental Slicing Through Slice-Updating Edit Scripts

To incrementally update a slice S1 = Slice(M, C1 → M ) to become slice S2 =
Slice(M, C2 → M ), we show that the approach presented in [8] constructs a
slice-updating edit script ΔS1 ⇒S2 which, if applied to the current slice S1 , yields
S2 in an incremental way.
Similar to the construction of slice-creating edit scripts, the basic idea is to
consider the model M as model-creating edit script Δ⇒M . The slice-updating
edit script must delete all elements in the set S1 \ S2 from the current slice S1 ,
while adding all model elements in S2 \ S1 . It is constructed as follows: Let PS1
and PS2 be the sets of rule applications which create all the elements in S1 and
S2 , respectively. Next, the sets Prem and Padd of rule applications in Δ⇒M are
determined with Prem = PS1 \ PS2 and Padd = PS2 \ PS1 . Finally, the resulting
edit script ΔS1 ⇒S2 contains (1) the rule applications in set Padd , with the same
dependencies as in Δ⇒M , and (2) for each rule application in Prem , its inverse
rule application with reversed dependencies as in Δ⇒M . By construction, there
cannot be dependencies between rule applications in both sets, so they can be
executed in arbitrary order.
In addition to the completeness of the set R of transformation rules for a
given modeling language (s. Sect. 4.2), a second applicability condition is that,
for each rule r in R, there must be an inverse rule r−1 which reverts the effect
of r. Given that these conditions are satisfied and a slice-updating edit script
ΔS1 ⇒S2 can be created, its application to S1 indeed behaves according to the
incremental slice update as in Definition 6. This is so because, by construction,
none of the model elements in the intersection of S1 and S2 in M is deleted by
the edit script ΔS1 ⇒S2 . Consequently, none of the elements in the intersection
of C1 and C2 in M , which is a subset of S1 ∩ S2 , is deleted.
4.4 Implementation
The framework instantiation has been implemented using a set of standard MDE
technologies on top of the widely used Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF),
which employs an object-oriented implementation of graph-based models in
which nodes and edges are represented as objects and references, respectively.
Edit scripts are calculated using the model differencing framework SiLift [21],
which uses EMF Compare [22] in order to determine the corresponding elements
in a pair of models being compared with each other. A matching determined by
EMF Compare fulfills the requirements presented in Sect. 4.1 since EMF Com-
pare (a) delivers 1:1-correspondences between elements, thus yielding an injective
mapping, and (b) implicitly matches edges if their respective source and target
nodes are matched and if they have the same type (because EMF does not sup-
port parallel edges of the same type in general), thus yielding an edge-preserving
mapping. Finally, transformation rules are implemented using the model trans-
formation language and framework Henshin [23,24] which is based on graph
transformation concepts.
5 Solving the Motivating Examples

In this section, we outline the configurations of two concrete model slicers which
are based on the framework instantiation presented in Sect. 4, and which are
capable of solving the motivating examples introduced in Sect. 2. Each of these
slicers is configured by a set of Henshin transformation rules which are used for
the calculation of model-creating, and thus for the construction of slice-creating
and slice-updating, edit scripts. The complete rule sets can be found at the
accompanying website of this paper [25].
5.1 A State-Based Model Slicer

Two of the creation rules which are used to configure a state-based model slicer
as described in our first example of Sect. 2 are shown in Fig. 7. The rules are
depicted in an integrated form: the left- and right-hand sides of a rule are merged
into a unified model graph following the visual syntax of the Henshin model
transformation language [23].
Fig. 7. Subset of the creation rules for configuring a state-based model slicer
Most of the creation rules

are of a similar form as
the creation rule createPseu-
dostate, which simply creates
a pseudostate and connects
it with an existing container.
The key idea of this slicer
configuration, however, is the
special creation rule creat-
eStateWithTransition, which
creates a state together with Fig. 8. Slice-creating edit script.
an incoming transition in a
single step. To support the incremental updating of slices, for each creation
rule an inverse deletion rule is included in the overall set of transformation rules.
Parts of the resulting model-creating edit script using these rules are shown in
Fig. 8. For example, rule application p3 creates the state Idle in the top-level
region of the state machine PSCSystem, together with an incoming transition
having the initial state of the state machine, created by rule application p2, as
source state. Thus, p3 depends on p2 since the initial state must be created first.
Similar dependency relationships arise for the creation of other states which are
created together with an incoming transition.
The effect of this configuration on the behavior of the model slicer is as follows
(illustrated here for the creation of a new slice): If state S.1.0.1 is selected as
slicing criterion, as in our motivating example, rule application p7 is included
in the slice-creating edit script since it creates that state. Implicitly, all rule
applications on which p7 transitively depends on, i.e., all rule applications p1
to p6, are also included in the slice-creating edit script. Consequently, the slice
resulting from applying the slice-creating edit script to an empty model creates
a submodel of the state machine of Fig. 1 which contains a transition path from
its initial state to state S.1.0.1, according to the desired behavior of the slicer.
A current limitation of our solution is that, for each state s of the slicing
criterion, only a single transition path from the initial state to state s is sliced.
This path is determined non-deterministically from the set of all possible paths
from the initial state to state s. To overcome this limitation, rule schemes com-
prising a kernel rule and a set of multi-rules (see, e.g., [26,27]) would have to
be supported by our approach. Then, a rule scheme for creating a state with an
arbitrary number of incoming transitions could be included in the configuration
of our slicer, which in turn leads to the desired effect during model slicing. We
leave such a support for rule schemes for future work.
5.2 A Slicer for Extracting Editable Submodels
In general, editable models adhere to a basic form of consistency which we assume

to be defined by the effective meta-model of a given model editor [28]. The basic
idea of configuring a model slicer for extracting editable submodels, adopted
from [8], is that all creation and deletion rules preserve this level of consistency.
Given an effective meta-model, such a rule set can be generated using the app-
roach presented in [28] and its EMF-/UML-based implementation [29,30].
In our motivating example of Sect. 2, for instance, a consistency-preserving
creation rule createTrigger creates an element of type Trigger and immediately
connects it to an already existing operation of a class. The operation serves
as the callEvent of this trigger and needs to be created first, which leads to
a dependency in a model-creating edit script. Thus, if a trigger is included in
the slicing criterion, the operation serving as callEvent of that trigger will be
implicitly included in the resulting slice since it is created by the slice-creating
edit script.
6 Related Work
A large number of model slicers has been developed. Most of them work only
with one specific type of models, notably state machines [4] and other types of
behavioral models such as MATLAB/Simulink block diagrams [5]. Other sup-
ported model types include UML class diagrams [31], architectural models [32] or
system models defined using the SysML modeling language [33]. None of these
approaches can be transferred to other (domain-specific) modeling languages,
and they do not abstract from concrete slicing specifications.
The only well-known more generally usable technique which is adaptable to
a given modeling language and slicing specification is Kompren [7]. In contrast
to our formal framework, however, Kompren does not abstract from the con-
crete model modification approach and implementation technologies. It offers
a domain-specific language based on the Kermeta model transformation lan-
guage [34] to specify the behavior of a model slicer, and a generator which gen-
erates a fully functioning model slicer from such a specification. When Kompren
is used in the so-called active mode, slices are incrementally updated when the
input model changes, according to the principle of incremental model transfor-
mation [35]. In our approach, slices are incrementally updated when the slicing
criterion is modified. As long as endogenous model transformations for con-
structing slices are used only, Kompren could be easily extended to become an
instantiation of our formal framework.
Incremental slicing has also been addressed in [36], however, using a notion
of incrementality which fundamentally differs from ours. The technique has been
developed in the context of testing model-based delta-oriented software product
lines [37]. Rather than incrementally updating an existing slice, the approach
incrementally processes the product space of a product line, where each “product”
is specified by a state machine model. As in software regression testing, the goal
is to obtain retest information by utilizing differences between state machine
slices obtained from different products.
In a broader sense, related work can be found in the area of model splitting
and model decomposition. The technique presented in [38] aims at splitting a
model into submodels according to linguistic heuristics and using information
retrieval techniques. The model decomposition approach presented in [39] consid-
ers models as graphs and first determines strongly connected graph components
from which the space of possible decompositions is derived in a second step.
Both approaches are different from ours in that they produce a partitioning of
an input model instead of a single slice. None of them supports the incremental
updating of a model partitioning.
7 Conclusion
We presented a formal framework for defining model slicers that support incre-
mental slice updates based on a general concept of model modifications. Incre-
mental slice updates were shown to be equivalent to non-incremental ones. Fur-
thermore, we presented a framework instantiation based on the concept of edit
scripts defining application sequences of model transformation rules. This instan-

tiation was implemented by two concrete model slicers based on the Eclipse
Modeling Framework and the model differencing framework SiLift.
As future work, we plan to investigate incremental updates of both the under-
lying model and the slicing criterion. It is also worthwhile to examine the extent
to which further concrete model slicers fit into our formal framework of incre-
mental model slicing. For our own instantiation of this framework, we plan to
cover further model transformation features such as rule schemes and applica-
tion conditions, which will make the configuration of concrete model slicers more
flexible and enable us to support further use cases and purposes.
Acknowledgments. This work was partially supported by the DFG (German

Research Foundation) under the Priority Programme SPP1593: Design For Future -
Managed Software Evolution.
References
1. Weiser, M.: Program slicing. In: Proceedings of ICSE 1981. IEEE Press (1981)
2. Xu, B., Qian, J., Zhang, X., Wu, Z., Chen, L.: A brief survey of program slicing.
ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 30(2), 1–36 (2005)
3. Brambilla, M., Cabot, J., Wimmer, M.: Model-driven software engineering in prac-
tice. Synth. Lect. Softw. Eng. 1(1), 1–182 (2012)
4. Androutsopoulos, K., Clark, D., Harman, M., Krinke, J., Tratt, L.: State-based
model slicing: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 45(4), 36 (2013). https://doi.org/
10.1145/2501654.2501667. Article 53
5. Gerlitz, T., Kowalewski, S.: Flow sensitive slicing for matlab/simulink models. In:
Proceedings of WICSA 2016. IEEE (2016)
6. Samuel, P., Mall, R.: A novel test case design technique using dynamic slicing of
UML sequence diagrams. e-Informatica 2(1), 71–92 (2008)
7. Blouin, A., Combemale, B., Baudry, B., Beaudoux, O.: Kompren: modeling and
generating model slicers. SoSyM 14(1), 321–337 (2015)
8. Pietsch, C., Ohrndorf, M., Kelter, U., Kehrer, T.: Incrementally slicing editable
submodels. In: Proceedings of ASE 2017. IEEE Press (2017)
9. Baker, P., Loh, S., Weil, F.: Model-driven engineering in a large industrial context—
Motorola case study. In: Briand, L., Williams, C. (eds.) MODELS 2005. LNCS,
vol. 3713, pp. 476–491. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/
11557432_36
10. Hutchinson, J., Whittle, J., Rouncefield, M., Kristoffersen, S.: Empirical assessment
of MDE in industry. In: Proceedings of ICSE 2011. IEEE (2011)
11. Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.C.: The grand challenge of scalability for
model driven engineering. In: Chaudron, M.R.V. (ed.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol.
5421, pp. 48–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
01648-6_5
12. Kolovos, D.S., Rose, L.M., Matragkas, N., Paige, R.F., Guerra, E., Cuadrado, J.S.,
De Lara, J., Ráth, I., Varró, D., Tisi, M., et al.: A research roadmap towards
achieving scalability in model driven engineering. In: Proceedings of BigMDE @
STAF 2013. ACM (2013)
13. Capozucca, A., Cheng, B., Guelfi, N., Istoan, P.: OO-SPL modelling of the focused
case study. In: Proceedings of CMA @ MoDELS 2011 (2011)
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
would unquestionably be soon absorbed, while the ultimate result
might be the partition of all South America between the
various European Powers. …
"The people of the United States have learned in the school of

experience to what extent the relations of States to each
other depend not upon sentiment nor principle, but upon
selfish interest. They will not soon forget that, in their
hour of distress, all their anxieties and burdens were
aggravated by the possibility of demonstrations against their
national life on the part of Powers with whom they had long
maintained the most harmonious relations. They have yet in
mind that France seized upon the apparent opportunity of our
Civil War to set up a Monarchy in the adjoining State of
Mexico. They realize that, had France and Great Britain held
important South American possessions to work from and to
benefit, the temptation to destroy the predominance of the
Great Republic in this hemisphere by furthering its
dismemberment might have been irresistible. From that grave
peril they have been saved in the past, and may be saved again
in the future, through the operation of the sure but silent
force of the doctrine proclaimed by President Monroe. …
"There is, then, a doctrine of American public law, well

founded in principle and abundantly sanctioned by precedent,
which entitles and requires the United States to treat as an
injury to itself the forcible assumption by an European Power
of political control over an American State. The application
of the doctrine to the boundary dispute between Great Britain
and Venezuela remains to be made, and presents no real
difficulty. Though the dispute relates to a boundary-line,
yet, as it is between States, it necessarily imports political
control to be lost by one party and gained by the other. The
political control at stake, too, is of no mean importance, but
concerns a domain of great extent—the British claim, it will
be remembered, apparently expanding in two years some 33,000
square miles—and, if it also directly involves the command of
the mouth of the Orinoco, is of immense consequence in
connection with the whole river navigation of the interior of
South America. It has been intimated, indeed, that in respect
of these South American possessions, Great Britain is herself
an American State like any other, so that a controversy
between her and Venezuela is to be settled between themselves
as if it were between Venezuela and Brazil, or between
Venezuela and Colombia, and does not call for or justify
United States intervention. If this view be tenable at all,
the logical sequence is plain. Great Britain as a South
American State is to be entirely differentiated from Great
Britain generally; and if the boundary question cannot be
settled otherwise than by force, British Guiana with her own
independent resources, and not those of the British Empire,
should be left to settle the matter with Venezuela—an
arrangement which very possibly Venezuela might not object to.
But the proposition that an European Power with an American
dependency is for the purposes of the Monroe doctrine to be
classed not as an European but as an American State will not
admit of serious discussion. If it were to be adopted, the
Monroe doctrine would be too valueless to be worth asserting.
…
"The declaration of the Monroe Message—that existing Colonies

or dependencies of an European Power would not be interfered
with by the United States—means Colonies or dependencies then
existing with their limits as then existing. So it has been
invariably construed, and so it must continue to be construed,
unless it is to be deprived of all vital force. Great Britain
cannot be deemed a South American State within the purview of
the Monroe doctrine, nor, if she is appropriating Venezuelan
territory, is it material that she does so by advancing the
frontier of an old Colony instead of by the planting of a new
Colony. The difference is matter of form, and not of
substance, and the doctrine if pertinent in the one case must
be in the other also. It is not admitted, however, and
therefore cannot be assumed, that Great Britain is in fact
usurping dominion over Venezuelan territory. While Venezuela
charges such usurpation Great Britain denies it, and the
United States, until the merits are authoritatively
ascertained, can take sides with neither. But while this is
so—while the United States may not, under existing
circumstances at least, take upon itself to say which of the
two parties is right and which wrong—it is certainly within
its right to demand that the truth shall be ascertained. …
"It being clear, therefore, that the United States may

legitimately insist upon the merits of the boundary question
being determined, it is equally clear that there is but one
feasible mode of determining them, viz., peaceful arbitration.
The impracticability of any conventional adjustment has been
often and thoroughly demonstrated. Even more impossible of
consideration is an appeal to arms—a mode of settling national
pretensions unhappily not yet wholly obsolete. If, however, it
were not condemnable as a relic of barbarism and a crime in
itself, so one-sided a contest could not be invited nor even
accepted by Great Britain without distinct disparagement to
her character as a civilized State. Great Britain, however,
assumes no such attitude. On the contrary, she both admits
that there is a controversy, and that arbitration should be
resorted to for its adjustment. But, while up to that point
her attitude leaves nothing to be desired, its practical
effect is completely nullified by her insistence that the
submission shall cover but a part of the controversy—that, as
a condition of arbitrating her right to a part of the disputed
territory, the remainder shall be turned over to her. If it
were possible to point to a boundary which both parties had
ever agreed or assumed to be such either expressly or tacitly,
the demand that territory conceded by such line to British Guiana
should be held not to be in dispute might rest upon a
reasonable basis. But there is no such line. The territory
which Great Britain insists shall be ceded to her as a
condition of arbitrating her claim to other territory has
never been admitted to belong to her.
{687}
It has always and consistently been claimed by Venezuela. Upon
what principle—except her feebleness as a nation—is she to be
denied the right of having the claim heard and passed upon by
an impartial Tribunal? No reason or shadow of reason appears
in all the voluminous literature of the subject. …
"In these circumstances, the duty of the President appears to

him unmistakable and imperative. Great Britain's assertion of
title to the disputed territory, combined with her refusal to
have that title investigated, being a substantial
appropriation of the territory to her own use, not to protest
and give warning that the transaction will be regarded as
injurious to the interests of the people of the United States,
as well as oppressive in itself, would be to ignore an
established policy with which the honour and welfare of this
country are closely identified. While the measures necessary
or proper for the vindication of that policy are to be
determined by another branch of the Government, it is clearly
for the Executive to leave nothing undone which may tend to
render such determination unnecessary. You are instructed,
therefore, to present the foregoing views to Lord Salisbury by
reading to him this communication (leaving with him a copy
should he so desire), and to reinforce them by such pertinent
considerations as will doubtless occur to you. They call for a
definite decision upon the point whether Great Britain will
consent or will decline to submit the Venezuelan boundary
question in its entirety to impartial arbitration. It is the
earnest hope of the President that the conclusion will be on
the side of arbitration, and that Great Britain will add one
more to the conspicuous precedents she has already furnished
in favour of that wise and just mode of adjusting
international disputes. If he is to be disappointed in that
hope, however—a result not to be anticipated, and in his
judgment calculated to greatly embarrass the future relations
between this country and Great Britain—it is his wish to be
made acquainted with the fact at such early date as will
enable him to lay the whole subject before Congress in his
next Annual Message."
Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications

(Papers by Command:
United States Number 1, 1896, pages 13-21).
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895 (November).

The British Guiana boundary question.
Replies of Lord Salisbury to Secretary Olney.
The reply of Lord Salisbury was not written until the 26th of
November. It was then given in two despatches, bearing the
same date,—one devoted entirely to a discussion of "the Monroe
doctrine" and of the argument founded on it by Mr. Olney; the
other to a rehearsal of the Venezuela controversy from the
standpoint of the British government. In the communication
first mentioned he wrote:
"The contentions set forth by Mr. Olney in this part of his

despatch are represented by him as being an application of the
political maxims which are well known in American discussion
under the name of the Monroe doctrine. As far as I am aware,
this doctrine has never been before advanced on behalf of the
United States in any written communication addressed to the
Government of another nation; but it has been generally
adopted and assumed as true by many eminent writers and
politicians in the United States. It is said to have largely
influenced the Government of that country in the conduct of
its foreign affairs; though Mr. Clayton, who was Secretary of
State under President Taylor, expressly stated that that
Administration had in no way adopted it. But during the period
that has elapsed since the Message of President Monroe was
delivered in 1823, the doctrine has undergone a very notable
development, and the aspect which it now presents in the hands
of Mr. Olney differs widely from its character when it first
issued from the pen of its author. The two propositions which
in effect President Monroe laid down were, first, that America
was no longer to be looked upon as a field for European
colonization; and, secondly, that Europe must not attempt to
extend its political system to America, or to control the
political condition of any of the American communities who had
recently declared their independence. The dangers against
which President Monroe thought it right to guard were not as
imaginary as they would seem at the present day. … The system
of which he speaks, and of which he so resolutely deprecates
the application to the American Continent, was the system then
adopted by certain powerful States upon the Continent of
Europe of combining to prevent by force of arms the adoption
in other countries of political institutions which they
disliked, and to uphold by external pressure those which they
approved. … The dangers which were apprehended by President
Monroe have no relation to the state of things in which we
live at the present day. … It is intelligible that Mr. Olney
should invoke, in defence of the views on which he is now
insisting, an authority which enjoys so high a popularity with
his own fellow-countrymen. But the circumstances with which
President Monroe was dealing, and those to which the present
American Government is addressing itself, have very few
features in common. Great Britain is imposing no 'system' upon
Venezuela, and is not concerning herself in any way with the
nature of the political institutions under which the
Venezuelans may prefer to live. But the British Empire and the
Republic of Venezuela are neighbours, and they have differed
for some time past, and continue to differ, as to the line by
which their dominions are separated. It is a controversy with
which the United States have no apparent practical concern. It
is difficult, indeed, to see how it can materially affect any
State or community outside those primarily interested, except
perhaps other parts of Her Majesty's dominions, such as
Trinidad. The disputed frontier of Venezuela has nothing to do
with any of the questions dealt with by President Monroe. It is
not a question of the colonization by a European Power of any
portion of America. It is not a question of the imposition
upon the communities of South America of any system of
government devised in Europe. It is simply the determination
of the frontier of a British possession which belonged to the
Throne of England long before the Republic of Venezuela came
into existence.
{688}
"But even if the interests of Venezuela were so far linked to

those of the United States as to give to the latter a 'locus
standi' in this controversy, their Government apparently have
not formed, and certainly do not express, any opinion upon the
actual merits of the dispute. The Government of the United States
do not say that Great Britain, or that Venezuela, is in the
right in the matters that are in issue. But they lay down that
the doctrine of President Monroe, when he opposed the
imposition of European systems, or the renewal of European
colonization, confers upon them the right of demanding that
when a European Power has a frontier difference with a South
American community, the European Power shall consent to refer
that controversy to arbitration; and Mr. Olney states that
unless Her Majesty's Government accede to this demand, it will
'greatly embarrass the future relations between Great Britain
and the United States.' Whatever may be the authority of the
doctrine laid down by President Monroe, there is nothing in
his language to show that he ever thought of claiming this
novel prerogative for the United States. … I will not now
enter into a discussion of the merits of this method of
terminating international differences. It has proved itself
valuable in many cases; but it is not free from defects, which
often operate as a serious drawback on its value. It is not
always easy to find an Arbitrator who is competent, and who,
at the same time, is wholly free from bias; and the task of
insuring compliance with the Award when it is made is not
exempt from difficulty. …
"In the remarks which I have made, I have argued on the theory
that the Monroe doctrine in itself is sound. I must not,
however, be understood as expressing any acceptance of it on
the part of Her Majesty's Government. It must always be
mentioned with respect, on account of the distinguished
statesman to whom it is due, and the great nation who have
generally adopted it. But international law is founded on the
general consent of nations; and no statesman, however eminent,
and no nation, however powerful, are competent to insert into
the code of international law a novel principle which was
never recognized before, and which has not since been accepted
by the Government of any other country. … Though the language
of President Monroe is directed to the attainment of objects
which most Englishmen would agree to be salutary, it is
impossible to admit that they have been inscribed by any
adequate authority in the code of international law; and the
danger which such admission would involve is sufficiently
exhibited both by the strange development which the doctrine
has received at Mr. Olney's hands, and the arguments by which
it is supported, in the despatch under reply. In defence of it
he says: 'That distance and 3,000 miles of intervening ocean
make any permanent political union between a European and an
American State unnatural and inexpedient will hardly be
denied. But physical and geographical considerations are the
least of the objections to such a union. Europe has a set of
primary interests which are peculiar to herself; America is
not interested in them, and ought not to be vexed or
complicated with them.' … The necessary meaning of these words
is that the union between Great Britain and Canada; between
Great Britain and Jamaica and Trinidad; between Great Britain
and British Honduras or British Guiana are 'inexpedient and
unnatural.' President Monroe disclaims any such inference from
his doctrine; but in this, as in other respects, Mr. Olney
develops it. He lays down that the inexpedient and unnatural
character of the union between a European and American State
is so obvious that it 'will hardly be denied.' Her Majesty's
Government are prepared emphatically to deny it on behalf of
both the British and American people who are subject to her
Crown."
In his second despatch, Lord Salisbury drew the conclusions of

his government from the facts as seen on the English side, and
announced its decision, in the following terms: "It will be
seen … that the Government of Great Britain have from the
first held the same view as to the extent of territory which
they are entitled to claim as a matter of right. It comprised
the coast-line up to the River Amacura, and the whole basin of
the Essequibo River and its tributaries. A portion of that
claim, however, they have always been willing to waive
altogether; in regard to another portion, they have been and
continue to be perfectly ready to submit the question of their
title to arbitration. As regards the rest, that which lies
within the so-called Schomburgk line, they do not consider
that the rights of Great Britain are open to question. Even
within that line they have, on various occasions, offered to
Venezuela considerable concessions as a matter of friendship
and conciliation, and for the purpose of securing an amicable
settlement of the dispute. If as time has gone on the
concessions thus offered diminished in extent, and have now
been withdrawn, this has been the necessary consequence of the
gradual spread over the country of British settlements, which
Her Majesty's Government cannot in justice to the inhabitants
offer to surrender to foreign rule, and the justice of such
withdrawal is amply borne out by the researches in the
national archives of Holland and Spain, which have furnished
further and more convincing evidence in support of the British
claims.
"Her Majesty's Government are sincerely desirous of being in

friendly relations with Venezuela, and certainly have no
design to seize territory that properly belongs to her, or
forcibly to extend sovereignty over any portion of her
population. They have, on the contrary, repeatedly expressed
their readiness to submit to arbitration the conflicting
claims of Great Britain and Venezuela to large tracts of
territory which from their auriferous nature are known to be
of almost untold value. But they cannot consent to entertain,
or to submit to the arbitration of another Power or of foreign
jurists, however eminent, claims based on the extravagant
pretensions of Spanish officials in the last century, and
involving the transfer of large numbers of British subjects,
who have for many years enjoyed the settled rule of a British
Colony, to a nation of different race and language, whose
political system is subject to frequent disturbance, and whose
institutions as yet too often afford very inadequate
protection to life and property. No issue of this description
has ever been involved in the questions which Great Britain
and the United States have consented to submit to arbitration,
and Her Majesty's Government are convinced that in similar
circumstances the Government of the United States would be
equally firm in declining to entertain proposals of such a
nature."
Great Britain, Papers by Command:
United States Number 1, 1896, pages 23-31.
{689}
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895 (December).

Message of President Cleveland to the United States Congress
on the Guiana boundary dispute.
As the replies given by Lord Salisbury showed no disposition

on the part of the British government to submit its dispute
with Venezuela to arbitration, President Cleveland took the
subject in hand, and addressed to Congress, on the 17th of
December, 1895, a special Message which startled the world by
the peremptoriness of its tone.
"In my annual message addressed to the Congress on the 3d

instant," he said, "I called attention to the pending boundary
controversy between Great Britain and the Republic of
Venezuela and recited the substance of a representation made
by this Government to Her Britannic Majesty's Government
suggesting reasons why such dispute should be submitted to
arbitration for settlement and inquiring whether it would be
so submitted. The answer of the British Government, which was
then awaited, has since been received, and, together with the
dispatch to which it is a reply, is hereto appended. Such
reply is embodied in two communications addressed by the
British prime minister to Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British
ambassador at this capital. It will be seen that one of these
communications is devoted exclusively to observations upon the
Monroe doctrine, and claims that in the present instance a new
and strange extension and development of this doctrine is
insisted on by the United States; that the reasons justifying
an appeal to the doctrine enunciated by President Monroe are
generally inapplicable 'to the state of things in which we
live at the present day,' and especially inapplicable to a
controversy involving the boundary line between Great Britain
and Venezuela.
"Without attempting extended argument in reply to these

positions, it may not be amiss to suggest that the doctrine
upon which we stand is strong and sound, because its
enforcement is important to our peace and safety as a nation
and is essential to the integrity of our free institutions and
the tranquil maintenance of our distinctive form of
government. It was intended to apply to every stage of our
national life and can not become obsolete while our Republic
endures. If the balance of power is justly a cause for jealous
anxiety among the Governments of the Old World and a subject
for our absolute non-interference, none the less is an
observance of the Monroe doctrine of vital concern to our
people and their Government. Assuming, therefore, that we may
properly insist upon this doctrine without regard to 'the
state of things in which we live' or any changed conditions
here or elsewhere, it is not apparent why its application may
not be invoked in the present controversy. If a European power
by an extension of its boundaries takes possession of the
territory of one of our neighboring Republics against its will
and in derogation of its rights, it is difficult to see why to
that extent such European power does not thereby attempt to
extend its system of government to that portion of this
continent which is thus taken. This is the precise action
which President Monroe declared to be 'dangerous to our peace
and safety,' and it can make no difference whether the
European system is extended by an advance of frontier or
otherwise.
"It is also suggested in the British reply that we should not

seek to apply the Monroe doctrine to the pending dispute
because it does not embody any principle of international law
which 'is founded on the general consent of nations,' and that
'no statesman, however eminent, and no nation, however
powerful, are competent to insert into the code of
international law a novel principle which was never recognized
before and which has not since been accepted by the government
of any other country.' Practically the principle for which we
contend has peculiar, if not exclusive, relation to the United
States. It may not have been admitted in so many words to the
code of international law, but since in international councils
every nation is entitled to the rights belonging to it, if the
enforcement of the Monroe doctrine is something we may justly
claim, it has its place in the code of international law as
certainly and as securely as if it were specifically
mentioned; and when the United States is a suitor before the
high tribunal that administers international law the question
to be determined is whether or not we present claims which the
justice of that code of law can find to be right and valid.
"The Monroe doctrine finds its recognition in those principles

of international law which are based upon the theory that
every nation shall have its rights protected and its just
claims enforced. Of course this government is entirely
confident that under the sanction of this doctrine we have
clear rights and undoubted claims. Nor is this ignored in the
British reply. The prime minister, while not admitting that
the Monroe doctrine is applicable to present conditions,
states: 'In declaring that the United States would resist any
such enterprise if it was contemplated, President Monroe
adopted a policy which received the entire sympathy of the
English Government of that date.'
"He further declares: 'Though the language of President Monroe

is directed to the attainment of objects which most Englishmen
would agree to be salutary, it is impossible to admit that
they have been inscribed by any adequate authority in the code
of international law.'
"Again he says: 'They [Her Majesty's Government] fully concur

with the view which President Monroe apparently entertained,
that any disturbance of the existing territorial distribution
in that hemisphere by any fresh acquisitions on the part of
any European State would be a highly inexpedient change.'
"In the belief that the doctrine for which we contend was
clear and definite, that it was founded upon substantial
considerations, and involved our safety and welfare, that it
was fully applicable to our present conditions and to the
state of the world's progress, and that it was directly
related to the pending controversy, and without any conviction
as to the final merits of the dispute, 'but anxious to learn
in a satisfactory and conclusive manner whether Great Britain
sought under a claim of boundary to extend her possessions on
this continent without right, or whether she merely sought
possession of territory fairly included within her lines of
ownership, this Government proposed to the Government of Great
Britain a resort to arbitration as the proper means of
settling the question, to the end that a vexatious boundary
dispute between the two contestants might be determined and
our exact standing and relation in respect to the controversy
might be made clear.
{690}
It will be seen from the correspondence herewith submitted
that this proposition has been declined by the British
Government upon grounds which in the circumstances seem to me
to be far from satisfactory. It is deeply disappointing that
such an appeal, actuated by the most friendly feelings toward
both nations directly concerned, addressed to the sense of
justice and to the magnanimity of one of the great powers of
the world, and touching its relations to one comparatively
weak and small, should have produced no better results.
"The course to be pursued by this Government in view of the

present condition does not appear to admit of serious doubt.
Having labored faithfully for many years to induce Great
Britain to submit this dispute to impartial arbitration, and
having been now finally apprised of her refusal to do so,
nothing remains but to accept the situation, to recognize its
plain requirements, and deal with it accordingly. Great
Britain's present proposition has never thus far been regarded
as admissible by Venezuela, though any adjustment of the
boundary which that country may deem for her advantage and may
enter into of her own free will can not of course be objected
to by the United States. Assuming, however, that the attitude
of Venezuela will remain unchanged, the dispute has reached
such a stage as to make it now incumbent upon the United
States to take measures to determine with sufficient certainty
for its justification what is the true divisional line between
the Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana. The inquiry to
that end should of course be conducted carefully and
judicially, and due weight should be given to all available
evidence, records, and facts in support of the claims of both
parties. In order that such an examination should be
prosecuted in a thorough and satisfactory manner, I suggest
that the Congress make an adequate appropriation for the
expenses of a commission, to be appointed by the Executive,
who shall make the necessary investigation and report upon the
matter with the least possible delay. When such report is made
and accepted it will, in my opinion, be the duty of the United
States to resist by every means in its power, as a willful
aggression upon its rights and interests, the appropriation by
Great Britain of any lands or the exercise of governmental
jurisdiction over any territory which after investigation we
have determined of right belongs to Venezuela.
"In making these recommendations I am fully alive to the

responsibility incurred and keenly realize all the
consequences that May follow. I am, nevertheless, firm in my
conviction that while it is a grievous thing to contemplate
the two great English-speaking peoples of the world as being
otherwise than friendly competitors in the onward march of
civilization and strenuous and worthy rivals in all the arts
of peace, there is no calamity which a great nation can invite
which equals that which follows a supine submission to wrong and
injustice and the consequent loss of national self-respect and
honor, beneath which are shielded and defended a people's
safety and greatness."
United States, Message and Documents

(Abridgment, 1895-1896).
The recommendations of the President were acted upon with

remarkable unanimity and promptitude in Congress, a bill
authorizing the appointment of the proposed commission, and
appropriating $100,000 for the necessary expenditure, being
passed by the House on the day following the Message (December
17), and by the Senate on the 20th.
See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (DECEMBER).
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895-1896 (December-January).

Feeling in England and the United States
over the boundary dispute.
See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1895-1896 (DECEMBER-JANUARY).
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1896-1899.
Appointment of the United States Commission to investigate
the boundary question.
Reopening of negotiations between the United States
and Great Britain.
The solution of the main difficulty found.
Arbitration and its result.
The Commission authorized by the Congress of the United States

to investigate and report on the true divisional line between
British Guiana and Venezuela was named by the President of the
United States, on the 1st of January, as follows:
David J. Brewer, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
of the United States;
Richard H. Alvey, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals in
the District of Columbia;
Andrew D. White, ex-President of Cornell University,
and ex-Minister to Germany and Russia;
Daniel C. Gilman, President of Johns Hopkins University;
Frederick H. Coudert, of New York.
The Commission was organized on the 4th by the election of

Justice Brewer to be its President. Mr. S. Mallet Prevost was
subsequently appointed Secretary. One of the first proceedings
of the Commission was to address a letter to the Secretary of
State, suggesting a friendly intimation to the governments of
Great Britain and Venezuela that their assistance to it, in
procuring unpublished archives and the like evidence, would be
highly acceptable, and that "if either should deem it
appropriate to designate an agent or attorney, whose duty it
would be to see that no such proofs were omitted or
overlooked, the Commission would be grateful for such evidence
of good will." This overture was well received in England, and
had an excellent effect. It was responded to by Lord
Salisbury, with an assurance that Her Majesty's government
would readily place at the disposal of the President of the
United States any information at their command, and would
communicate advance copies of documents soon to be published
on the subject of the boundary line. Before the close of
January the Commission had organized its work, with several
experts engaged to assist on special lines. Professor Justin
Winsor, Librarian of Harvard University, had undertaken to
report on the early maps of the Guiana-Venezuela country.
Professor George L. Burr, of Cornell University, was making
ready to examine the Dutch archives in Holland, and Professor
J. Franklin Jameson, of Brown University, was enlisted for
other investigations.
Before these labors had gone far, however, the two

governments, of Great Britain and the United States, were
induced to reopen a discussion of the possibility of an
arbitration of the dispute. On the 27th of February, Mr.
Bayard, the Ambassador of the United States at London,
conveyed to Lord Salisbury a proposal from his government
"that Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington should be
empowered to discuss the question at that capital with the
Secretary of State," and that "a clear definition of the
'settlements' by individuals in the territory in dispute,
which it is understood Her Majesty's Government desire should
be excluded from the proposed submission to arbitration,
should be propounded."
{691}
Lord Salisbury assented so far as to telegraph, on the same
day, to Sir Julian Pauncefote: "I have agreed with the United
States' Ambassador that, in principle, the matter may be
discussed between the United States Government (acting as the
friend of Venezuela) and your Excellency." But, a few days
later (March 5), the British Premier and Foreign Secretary
gave a broader range to the discussion, by recalling a
correspondence that had taken place in the spring of 1895
between the then American Secretary of State, Mr. Gresham, and
the British Ambassador, in contemplation of a general system
of international arbitration for the adjustment of disputes
between the two governments. Reviving that project, Lord
Salisbury submitted the heads of a general arbitration treaty
between the United States and Great Britain, which became a
subject of discussion for some weeks, without offering much
promise of providing for the settlement of the Venezuela
dispute. In May, the correspondence returned to the latter
subject more definitely, Lord Salisbury writing (May 22):
"From the first our objection has been to subject to the

decision of an Arbiter, who, in the last resort, must, of
necessity, be a foreigner, the rights of British colonists who
have settled in territory which they had every ground for
believing to be British, and whose careers would be broken,
and their fortunes possibly ruined, by a decision that the
territory on which they have settled was subject to the
Venezuelan Republic. At the same time, we are very conscious
that the dispute between ourselves and the Republic of
Venezuela affects a large portion of land which is not under
settlement, and which could be disposed of without any
injustice to any portion of the colonial population. We are
very willing that the territory which is comprised within this
definition should be subjected to the results of an
arbitration, even though some portion of it should be found to
fall within the Schomburgk line." He proposed, accordingly,
the creation of a commission of four persons, for the
determination of the questions of fact involved, on whose
report the two governments of Great Britain and Venezuela
should endeavor to agree on a boundary line; failing which
agreement, a tribunal of arbitration should fix the line, on
the basis of facts reported by the Commission. "Provided
always that in fixing such line the Tribunal shall not have
power to include as the territory of Venezuela any territory
which was bona fide occupied by subjects of Great Britain on
the 1st January, 1887, or as the territory of Great Britain
any territory bona fide occupied by Venezuelans at the same
date."
Objections to this proposal, especially to its final

stipulation, were raised by the government of the United
States, and the negotiation looked unpromising again for a
time; but at length, on the 13th of July, Mr. Olney made a
suggestion which happily solved the one difficulty that had
been, from the beginning, a bar to agreement between the two
governments. "Can it be assumed," he asked, in a letter of
that date, "that Her Majesty's Government would submit to
unrestricted arbitration the whole of the territory in
dispute, provided it be a rule of the arbitration, embodied in
the arbitral agreement, that territory which has been in the
exclusive, notorious, and actual use and occupation of either
party for even two generations, or say for sixty years, shall
be held by the arbitrators to be the territory of such party?
In other words, will Her Majesty's Government assent to
unrestricted arbitration of all the territory in controversy,
with the period for the acquisition of title by prescription
fixed by agreement of the parties in advance at sixty years?"
Lord Salisbury assented to the principle thus suggested, but
proposed a shorter term of occupation than sixty years.
Finally the term of fifty years was accepted on both sides,
and from that point the arrangement of a Treaty of Arbitration
between Great Britain and Venezuela went smoothly on. The good
news that England and America were practically at the end of
their dispute was proclaimed by Lord Salisbury, on the 9th of
November, in a speech at the Lord Mayor's banquet, in London,
when he said: "You are aware that in the discussion had with
the United States on behalf of their friends in Venezuela, our
question has not been whether there should be arbitration, but
whether arbitration should have unrestricted application; and
we have always claimed that those who, apart from historic
right, had the right which attaches to established
settlements, should be excluded from arbitration. Our
difficulty for months has been to define the settled
districts; and the solution has, I think, come from the
suggestion of the government of the United States, that we
should treat our colonial empire as we treat individuals; that
the same lapse of time which protects the latter in civic life
from having their title questioned, should similarly protect
an English colony; but, beyond that, when a lapse could not be
claimed, there should be an examination of title, and all the
equity demanded in regard thereto should be granted. I do not
believe I am using unduly sanguine words when I declare my
belief that this has brought the controversy to an end."
On the 10th of November, the Secretary of the United States

Commission appointed to investigate the disputed boundary
published the following: "The statements of Lord Salisbury, as
reported in the morning papers, make it probable that the
boundary dispute now pending between Great Britain and Venezuela

Textbook Fundamental Approaches To Software Engineering Alessandra Russo Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook Fundamental Approaches To Software Engineering Alessandra Russo Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fundamental Approaches to Software

Engineering Alessandra Russo

Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering 1st

Software Engineering Modern Approaches Eric J. Braude

Fundamental Approaches to Screen Abnormalities in

Engineering Software Products: An Introduction to

Statistics For The Behavioural Sciences An Introduction

Introduction to software engineering Second Edition

Electroreception Fundamental Insights from Comparative

Introduction to Software Engineering 2nd Edition Ronald

Advanced Research in Computing and Software Science

Subline Series Editors

Subline Advisory Board

ISSN 0302-9743 ISSN 1611-3349 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018937400

LNCS Sublibrary: SL1 – Theoretical Computer Science and General Issues

Printed on acid-free paper

Lefteris Angelis, George Rahonis, Nick Bassiliades, Alexander Chatzigeorgiou, Ezio

February 2018 Joost-Pieter Katoen

February 2018 Alessandra Russo

Adam, Kai Lochau, Malte

Model-Based Software Development

A Formal Framework for Incremental Model Slicing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Multiple Model Synchronization with Multiary Delta Lenses . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Controlling the Attack Surface of Object-Oriented Refactorings . . . . . . . . . . 38

Effective Analysis of Attack Trees: A Model-Driven Approach. . . . . . . . . . . 56

Distributed Program and System Analysis

ROLA: A New Distributed Transaction Protocol and Its Formal Analysis . . . 77

A Process Network Model for Reactive Streaming Software

Distributed Graph Queries for Runtime Monitoring

EventHandler-Based Analysis Framework for Web Apps

Software Design and Verification

Hierarchical Specification and Verification of Architectural

Supporting Verification-Driven Incremental Distributed Design

Summarizing Software API Usage Examples

Fast Computation of Arbitrary Control Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Specification and Program Testing

Iterative Generation of Diverse Models for Testing Specifications

Optimising Spectrum Based Fault Localisation for Single Fault Programs

TCM: Test Case Mutation to Improve Crash Detection in Android . . . . . . . . 264

CRETE: A Versatile Binary-Level Concolic Testing Framework . . . . . . . . . . 281

Family-Based Software Development

Abstract Family-Based Model Checking Using Modal Featured Transition

FPH: Efficient Non-commutativity Analysis of Feature-Based Systems . . . . . 319

Taming Multi-Variability of Software Product Line Transformations . . . . . . . 337

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

Gabriele Taentzer1 , Timo Kehrer2 , Christopher Pietsch3(B) ,

Abstract. Program slicing is a technique which can determine the sim-

1. A formal framework for incremental model slicing which can function as a

This framework is based on graph-based models and model modiﬁcations and

communication can be triggered by calling the operation callFScoordinator or

Slice Update. The slicing criterion might be updated during a development

3.1 Models as Graphs

Considering models, especially visual models, their concrete syntax is distin-

Definition 1 (Typed model graph and morphism). Given two attributed

Fig. 2. Excerpt of a typed model graph.

3.2 Model Modifications

If we do not want to go into any details of model transformation approaches,

Definition 2 (Model modification). Given two models M1 and M2 , a

In a direct model modiﬁcation, model Ms characterizes an intermediate

Fig. 3. Excerpt of a model modiﬁcation

Example 2 (Direct model modiﬁcation). Figure 3 shows a model modiﬁcation

The double pushout approach to graph transformation [15] is a special kind