Taxonomy of Inconsistency Patterns
in Multi-View Modelling
Taxonomy of Inconsistency Patterns
in Multi-View Modelling
Multi-view modelling relies on consistency across heterogeneous views. Up until now, the literature lacked a compact, example-backed taxonomy of the inconsistency patterns that we keep seeing across practice and research prototypes. Existing surveys classify approaches and tools, but they do not stabilise the recurring defect patterns themselves in a form that is directly useful for benchmarking, evaluation, and tool-scope claims. This webpage presents a literature-based evidence map and a seven-category taxonomy of inconsistency patterns in multi-view modelling.
We built a seed corpus from foundational and survey literature, then extracted and coded 46 inconsistency examples from 18 sources. After a stabilisation pass using explicit tie-break rules, 40 examples were retained from 17 sources as core evidence. The taxonomy provides a concise vocabulary for describing consistency problems, a reusable evidence map for future research, and a basis for more precise claims about what checking and repair approaches do and do not cover.
Feel free to browse specifics hyperlinked below or bulk download the BibTeX collection sources.bib or LaTeX files macros.tex, table1.tex, and table2.tex.
Raw data is available as cat.data and evidence.data. The format is “newline-separated values” which is like CSV but values within each record are “vertically” separated with newlines; with double newlines separating records.
| 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 |
