ARXML Data Merging via Comparison Rules

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The exchange of architecture data between architecture definition tools and behavior modeling tools, particularly in the context of AUTOSAR ARXML files, often results in inconsistencies due to differences in data understanding and handling, leading to undesirable effects in the architecture definition tool when changes are made by the behavior modeling tool.

Innovation Solution

A method is introduced that involves opening and comparing two ARXML files in a comparison tool, identifying differences, applying predefined combination rules to resolve these differences, and ensuring a stable execution by aligning associated sections and removing differences that match the rules, thereby maintaining data integrity and preventing infinite loops.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If the behavior modeling tool deletes or changes architecture data portions that are not relevant to code generation, then the behavior modeling tool can focus on its specific needs, but this causes undesirable effects in the architecture definition tool

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvebehavior modeling tool's ability to handle its specific data needsVSAvoidintegrity of architecture data in the architecture definition tool

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments architecture data into different portions based on their relevance to code generation. The behavior modeling tool selectively processes only the portions it needs (code-relevant data), while leaving other portions intact. This segmentation allows each tool to work with appropriate data subsets without compromising overall data integrity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces an intermediary mechanism (the selective import/export process governed by predefined rules) that mediates between the behavior modeling tool's data processing needs and the architecture definition tool's data integrity requirements. This intermediary ensures that only appropriate changes are propagated between tools.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Productivity

If existing text comparison programs are used to compare ARXML files, then simple text-based differences can be identified, but these programs cannot handle the complex structure of ARXML files effectively

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvespeed of comparing architecture dataVSAvoidaccuracy of difference identification in complex data structure

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by using different comparison strategies for different portions of the ARXML file structure. Rather than applying a uniform text-based comparison, the system uses structure-aware comparison methods that understand the hierarchical and semantic relationships within the architecture data, ensuring accurate difference identification in complex structures.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces dynamic comparison capabilities that adapt to the complex structure of ARXML files. The comparison process can dynamically navigate through hierarchical structures, resolve cross-references, and understand data relationships, transforming the static text comparison approach into a dynamic, structure-aware comparison mechanism.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

3Adaptability or versatility

If multiple round trips of ARXML files occur between architecture definition tool and behavior modeling tool, then data can be exchanged and updated, but inconsistencies and undesirable effects accumulate

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveability to exchange and update architecture dataVSAvoidconsistency of architecture data across multiple exchanges

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSStability of the object's composition

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by establishing predefined combination rules before the data exchange process begins. These rules dictate how differences should be resolved and how data should be merged during each round trip. By having these rules predetermined, the system prevents inconsistencies from accumulating and ensures stable, predictable data composition across multiple exchanges.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements a feedback mechanism where the results of each round trip are analyzed and used to inform subsequent exchanges. The system tracks changes, applies combination rules to resolve conflicts, and ensures that each exchange builds upon a consistent baseline, preventing the accumulation of inconsistencies.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentUS11593076B2Method for merging architecture data

Publication Date: 2023.02.28 DSPACE SE & CO KG

AI summary

A computer-implemented method for merging architecture data that are exchanged between an architecture definition tool and a behavior modeling tool includes: opening a first file with first architecture data and a second file with second architecture data in a comparison tool; comparing the first architecture data with the second architecture data to obtain a first list of differences; retrieving at least one combination rule, wherein the at least one combination rule comprises an identification rule for identifying a difference and a change to be applied to the identified difference; ascertaining a second list of differences that fulfill the identification rule and removing the differences of the second list from the first list; and applying the change defined in the at least one combination rule to each difference in the second list.