Taxonomy of Inconsistency Patterns
in Multi-View Modelling
Category
C3: Behavioural contradiction
Taxonomy of Inconsistency Patterns
in Multi-View Modelling
C3: Behavioural contradiction
Views admit conflicting protocols, orderings, pre/postconditions, state combinations, or jointly unsafe behaviour.
C3 covers cases where the problem lies in the jointly admitted behaviour rather than in naming or structure. In our corpus, the clearest examples come from behavioural multi-modelling: different models compose into globally unsafe traffic-light states, or one model allows progress that is inconsistent with the state assumed by another. We also observed refinement examples in which lower-level protocols alter the nondeterministic or allowed behaviour of a higher-level one. Although C3 is one of the smallest categories in our counts, we do not interpret that as lack of importance. Quite the opposite: behavioural contradictions are repeatedly described by others as difficult to detect, expensive to formalise, and under-supported by available tools
| Code | Label | As primary | As secondary |
| C1 | Structural mismatch | 13 | 7 |
| C2 | Interface contract mismatch | 4 | 5 |
| C3 | Behavioural contradiction | 3 | 6 |
| C4 | Requirement satisfaction gap | 7 | 1 |
| C5 | Terminology divergence | 3 | 3 |
| C6 | Traceability disruption | 7 | 6 |
| C7 | Temporal skew | 3 | 9 |
