Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Baseline: Operation-Based Evolution and Versioning of Data

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Recording edits as operations lets you diff, merge, and rewrite queries even when the data's schema has changed.

desk verdict Operational Differencing is a genuinely new combination and the paper is honestly written, but the central mechanism rests on incomplete rules and an unproven roundtrip law — a strong conjecture, not a demonstrated result. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.09762 v2 pith:55XHMS3E submitted 2025-12-10 cs.DB

Jonathan Edwards , Tomas Petricek This is my paper
classification cs.DB
keywords operationaldifferencingschemaevolutiondataversioncontrolprojectionandretractionqueryrewritingmigrationprogrammingbydemonstrationrichoperations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces Operational Differencing, a way to manage richly structured data by recording high-level operations—including schema refactorings—and then 'diffing' two histories by projecting operations across each other so that the same edit can be carried through structural transformations. The central claim is that because changes are tracked as operations with intent, rather than as before/after states, one can compute fine-grained differences and merge or cherry-pick changes even after a schema change has moved, renamed, or reshaped the data. The authors build a repo-free version control model where branching is just copying, with append-only histories, and show that database schema migration operations like splitting a table work as first-class operations. They further conjecture that queries can be expressed as sequences of operations—'operationalized queries'—and demonstrate that query rewriting after schema change then falls out of the same projection machinery. A sympathetic reader would care because this promises to unify editing, collaboration, and schema evolution under one mechanism, which today are handled by separate tools.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the pair of functions Project and Retract defined on operations in a rich data model of typed nested lists and records with permanent IDs, tombstones, and type operations that migrate values (renames, inserts, moves, ListOf, Split, Join, and others). Project converts a pre-operation and a base operation into a post-operation that preserves the pre-operation's intent after the base has happened; Retract does the reverse, and its failure marks a dependency between operations. Transfer uses Retract to pull an operation back to a common ancestor state, then Project to push it forward through the other branch. This same machinery, applied to formula-like operation timelin

What would settle it

Enumerate every pair of supported operations and run the roundtrip test: retract an operation through another operation, then project it back. If any pair yields a different operation than the original (other than a no-op) or fails where the paper claims success, the rule set is incomplete; a concrete known case is transferring an address change from a pre-deduplication state into a deduplicated customers table, where the current implementation drops the change rather than splitting the row.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that two primitive functions on operations—Projection and Retraction—let one shift an operation across another operation while preserving its intention, and that this suffices to reconstruct diffing, merging, and query rewriting across schema changes. Projection maps a 'pre' operation through a 'base' operation into a 'post' operation that does the same thing in the new state, even when the base operation has moved or reshaped the data; Retraction goes backward, with failure signaling that the later operation depends on the earlier one. On top of these, the paper shows that every document can carry an append-only history, diffs can be synthesized by optimizin

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that the projection and retraction rules form a complete and intuitive axiom set for 'preserving intention' across all operations; the paper itself notes this is not objectively checkable and that the current implementation of the rules is incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Schema evolution becomes reversible and transferable: a database can be migrated by transferring type operations instead of writing ad hoc SQL scripts.
  • Data version control works across refactorings: a change made before a value was wrapped in a list or split into a separate table can be applied after those transforms.
  • No repository is needed for small-scale use; branches are copies with histories, and diffs are synthesized on demand.
  • Queries can be built by demonstration (sculpting a copy) and embedded as formulas that are automatically rewritten when the schema changes.
  • Operationalized queries give a bidirectional, updatable-view-like behavior with the known limitations of view updates.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next step would be to define the projection and retraction rules in a declarative DSL with property-based roundtrip testing; the first counterexample found would pinpoint the boundary of operations whose intent can be preserved.
  • The tombstone-via-insert-projection idea suggests a way to handle deletions in operation logs without persistent tombstones, which might simplify future implementations of operation-based systems.
  • The deduplication anomaly noted in the paper implies that the choice of base operations, not just the projection rules, determines transfer semantics; a set-valued datatype with equivalence classes would be a direct test of whether the approach can be made intuitive.
  • If the operationalized-query conjecture holds for a larger fragment, it could open an unexplored design space where query languages are defined by direct manipulation rather than by textual expressions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents Baseline, an operation-based platform for data version control and schema evolution. It defines a rich data model in which record fields and list elements carry permanent IDs, and it introduces a large set of value and type operations, including refactorings such as ListOf and database operations such as Split and Join. The central technical proposal is Operational Differencing, built from two primitive functions, Project and Retract, that map operations across intervening changes. The paper claims this enables fine-grained diffing and merging across structural transformations, a repo-less version control model, database normalization and bidirectional transfer, operationalized queries in the form of future timelines, and query rewriting that falls out 'for free' from transfer. The evaluation is a self-assessment against four of eight challenge problems from prior work, with several caveats acknowledged. The paper is written as an exploratory systems paper, using small examples and diagrams rather than formal semantics or proofs.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism works as claimed, it would be a genuinely useful unification of version control and schema evolution for structured data, with potential implications for database tooling and live programming systems. The paper has notable strengths: it presents concrete, runnable examples; it is unusually candid about limitations and open problems; and it situates the work in a broad related-work landscape with an accompanying playable demo. However, the central mechanism is currently specified only through selected projection rules and examples; the retraction rules, the roundtrip law, and the primitives underlying Split/Join are either omitted or left informal. As a result, the paper's load-bearing claims about high-fidelity transfer and query rewriting cannot yet be independently verified or reproduced. The significance is therefore conditional on completing and validating the rule system.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Figure 6] The Retract function is central to the paper: Transfer (§3.3), diff optimization (§3.4), selective undo (Appendix B), and query rewriting (§5.2) all depend on it. Yet the retraction rules are not presented at all—the paper says 'we skip over them in the interest of brevity.' Without a specification of these rules, the paper's central claims cannot be reproduced, checked, or independently implemented. Please include the retraction rules, at least for the operations used in the examples, or provide a supplementary technical report/artifact that fully specifies them.
  2. [§3.4 Note] The claim that diff optimization is order-independent is justified by the roundtrip law: 'The order in which the two branches are interleaved does not matter because of the roundtrip law.' The roundtrip law is introduced in §3.2 as something the authors 'test' informally, but no proof or test results are reported. If any pair of operations violates the roundtrip law, the optimized diff can depend on the iteration order, undermining the 'maximal shared state/minimal branches' claim. Please either prove the roundtrip law for the complete rule set or provide exhaustive property-based tests over the operation set and report the results.
  3. [§4 Note] The database layer is built on Split and Join, which are said to be 'composed from a set of primitive operations' with 'subtle tradeoffs on transfer semantics.' Those primitive operations and their projection/retraction rules are not specified. The normalization example in §4 therefore does not demonstrate that the demonstrated behavior generalizes beyond the specific hand-crafted sequence. Please specify the primitives and their transfer behavior, at least for nested tables and set-valued links, or clearly mark the database example as a prototype scenario rather than a solved general feature.
  4. [§4.1 Note] The deduplication example contains an admitted transfer anomaly: if an address change is made to e1 in the old schema, 'our current implementation drops the change' because e3 overwrites e1. This directly contradicts the paper's claim of high-fidelity transfer and occurs in the flagship schema-evolution example. The note says a set-like datatype would help, but that datatype is not specified. At minimum, this case should be presented as an open problem rather than a solved instance of challenge problem #2/#6, and the evaluation should not count it as a full solution without describing how the proposed fix changes the semantics.
  5. [§5.2] The claim that query rewriting falls out 'for free' from operational differencing is only as strong as the transfer machinery on which it depends. Since retraction rules are incomplete and the roundtrip law is unproven, the rewriting result is conditional. Moreover, the operationalized query language covers only selects and joins, as the paper acknowledges. Please either provide the missing semantics for the operations used in query rewriting or explicitly state in the contributions that the rewriting claim is a consequence of the (incomplete) transfer semantics and is demonstrated only on the given fragment.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §1] Typos: 'informaton' in the abstract, and 'iin' in the first paragraph of the introduction. These should be corrected.
  2. [§4.1 and §5] Inconsistent spellings: 'Customer Relationship department' appears as 'Cutomer Relationship department' in §5; also 'the scheme evolution operations' in §4.1 should be 'the schema evolution operations.'
  3. [Figure 10 and §5] The text in §5 refers to 'removePresent/removeAbsent' operations, but Figure 10 defines 'deletePresent' and 'deleteAbsent.' Please align the terminology.
  4. [Appendix D] The sentences 'Using an open source onboarding library was a mistake' and 'our early results are mixed' are presented without data or context. If user feedback is being reported, provide a short summary; otherwise, rephrase as subjective lessons learned rather than evaluation results.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Correctness of operational differencing is axiomatic by the paper's own admission, and the headline evaluation is self-assessed against the authors' own prior challenge problems; the worked examples are internally consistent but do not provide an independent external check.

  1. self definitional [§3.2 Remark (after Figure 6); cf. Contribution 2 in §1]
    "How do we know if the rules for projection and retraction are correct, that they do indeed preserve the intentions of operations? Our answer is that there is no objective answer to this question. The rules are essentially axioms defining what it means to preserve intention."

    The paper's headline capability—'Because our technique is operation-based we are able to do fine-grained diffing and merging despite intervening structural transformations'—is judged by whether Project/Retract 'preserve intention.' But §3.2 stipulates that 'preserving intention' is defined by those very rules. There is no independent criterion: any projection that follows the axioms is by definition the faithful one, so the 'high-fidelity' result is not derived from an external notion of fidelity but is a restatement of the rule set. The paper is candid about this, but it makes the central correctness claim definitional rather than empirical.

  2. self citation load bearing [§6 Evaluation; §1 contribution 7; Abstract]
    "We evaluate Baseline against the challenge problems proposed in Schema Evolution in Interactive Programming Systems [28]. ... We judge that we have solved four of the eight challenge problems."

    The benchmark that carries the paper's evaluation ('Altogether we develop solutions to four of the eight challenge problems') is the authors' own prior paper [28], co-authored by both current authors (with van der Storm and Litt). The assessment of what counts as 'solved' is self-awarded by the same authors; no independent conformance test, code-level check, or external judge is supplied. The 'solutions' are demonstrated on examples the authors chose from their own problem set, so the evaluation reduces to self-citation plus self-assessment rather than an external or falsifiable benchmark.

full rationale

The core derivation—Project, Retract, Transfer, diff optimization—is internally worked out on concrete operations and examples in §3–§5, and the query-rewriting 'for free' claim is a genuine consequence of composing Transfers rather than an independently fitted prediction. So this is not a case of a numerical fit being renamed a prediction. However, two load-bearing components are weaker than the surrounding narrative suggests. First, the notion of correctness ('preserving intention', and the roundtrip law used to justify diff-optimization order independence in §3.4) is stipulated as axioms and only informally tested; the paper admits no test results are given and that the implementation is incomplete (§3.2 Note), with retraction rules omitted. This makes the central claim definitional to a significant degree. Second, the evaluation is self-referential: it uses challenge problems from the authors' own prior paper and self-assesses success. Both issues are stated transparently in the manuscript, and the worked examples have independent content, so the score is moderate rather than high.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claims rest on several stated design choices and unproven assumptions. The projection/retraction rules are explicitly axiomatic, the roundtrip law is untested, and the query operationalization is a conjecture. These are the costs the reader pays beyond the standard background of type theory and version control.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Every record field and list element has a permanent unique ID (from disjoint sets F and E).
    Required for tracking locations across structural transformations; introduced in §2.
  • ad hoc to paper Projection/Retraction rules preserve the 'intention' of operations; correctness is axiomatic.
    The paper states (§3.2 Remark): 'There is no objective answer to this question. The rules are essentially axioms defining what it means to preserve intention.' This is load-bearing for diffing/merging.
  • ad hoc to paper The roundtrip law holds for the projection/retraction rules.
    The paper says it tests the roundtrip law (§3.2) but provides no proof or test evidence; without it, transfer may not be idempotent.
  • domain assumption Histories are append-only and copies preserve complete history.
    The repo-less model relies on copying an artifact with its history; if a copy loses or reorders history (e.g., file copying), diff synthesis fails (§3.5).
  • ad hoc to paper Queries can be operationalized into a sequence of schema and data operations.
    Explicitly a conjecture (§1, §5) developed only for a fragment with selects and joins; the query-rewriting claim depends on it.
invented entities (3)
  • link data type
    purpose: Represent foreign keys as links to list elements; used for Split/Join normalization.
    Introduced in §4 to extend the data model; no external validation of its semantics.
  • formula as future timeline
    purpose: Represent queries as timelines of operations returning a value from a hypothetical future.
    Introduced in §5.1; only a conjectured design.
  • virtual tombstones
    purpose: Record deletions as IDs in insert operations to avoid state tombstones.
    Introduced in Appendix A to solve the tombstone problem; the paper notes it substantially complicates the rules and is not implemented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Baseline: Operation-Based Evolution and Versioning of Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/55XHMS3E

@misc{pith2026251209762,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Baseline: Operation-Based Evolution and Versioning of Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/55XHMS3E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.09762}
}
read the original abstract

Baseline is a platform for richly structured data supporting change in multiple dimensions: mutation over time, collaboration across space, and evolution through design changes. It is built upon \textit{Operational Differencing}, a new technique for managing data in terms of high-level operations that include refactorings and schema changes. We use operational differencing to construct an operation-based form of version control on data structures used in programming languages and relational databases. This approach to data version control offers high-fidelity diffing and merging despite intervening structural transformations like schema changes. It offers users a simplified conceptual model of version control for ad hoc usage: There is no repo; Branching is just copying. The information maintained in a repo can be synthesized more precisely from the append-only histories of branches. Branches can be flexibly shared as is commonly done with document files, except with the added benefit of diffing and merging. We conjecture that queries can be operationalized into a sequence of schema and data operations. We develop that idea on a query language fragment containing selects and joins. Operationalized queries are represented as a future timeline that is speculatively executed as a branch off of the present state, returning a value from its hypothetical future. Operationalized queries get rewritten to accommodate schema change ``for free'' by the machinery of operational differencing. We evaluate Baseline with case studies of schema evolution problems identified iin a literature review, including the set of challenge problems we identified in a prior paper.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. How Wrangling Tools Shape Wrangling: A Technical Dimensions Analysis

    cs.HC 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across four interface paradigms, tool design shapes how data wrangling is approached but does not determine cleaning success.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Difference and Union of Models

    Marcus Alanen and Ivan Porres. “Difference and Union of Models”. In:«UML» 2003 - The Unified Modeling Language, Modeling Languages and Applications, 6th International Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, October 20-24, 2003, Proceedings. Edited by Perdita Stevens, Jon Whittle, and Grady Booch. Vol- ume 2863. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 200...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45221-8 2003

  2. [2]

    2025.url:https://www.ultorg.com(visited on 2025-09-14)

    Eirik Bakke.Ultorg. 2025.url:https://www.ultorg.com(visited on 2025-09-14)

    2025

  3. [3]

    Expressive Query Construction through Direct Manipulation of Nested Relational Results

    Eirik Bakke. “Expressive Query Construction through Direct Manipulation of Nested Relational Results”. Available athttps://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/ 107280. PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sept. 2016

    2016

  4. [4]

    Update semantics of relational views

    F. Bancilhon and N. Spyratos. “Update semantics of relational views”. In:ACM Transactions on Database Systems6.4 (Dec. 1981), pages 557–575.issn: 0362- 5915.doi:10.1145/319628.319634

    arXiv 1981

  5. [5]

    Semantics and implementation of schema evolution in object-oriented databases

    Jay Banerjee, Won Kim, Hyoung-Joo Kim, and Henry F. Korth. “Semantics and implementation of schema evolution in object-oriented databases”. In: Proceedings of the 1987 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management ofData.SIGMOD’87.SanFrancisco,California,USA:AssociationforComputing Machinery, 1987, pages 311–322.isbn: 0897912365.doi:10.1145/38713.38748

    arXiv 1987

  6. [6]

    2010.url:https://cedanet.com.au/ ceda/papers/Introducing%20CEDA.pdf(visited on 2025-09-14)

    David Barrett-Lennard.Introducing CEDA. 2010.url:https://cedanet.com.au/ ceda/papers/Introducing%20CEDA.pdf(visited on 2025-09-14)

    2010

  7. [7]

    2010.url:https://cedanet

    David Barrett-Lennard.Operational Transformation. 2010.url:https://cedanet. com.au/ceda/ot/(visited on 2025-09-14). 27 Baseline: Operation-Based Evolution and Versioning of Data

    2010

  8. [8]

    The Naturalist’s Friend - A case study and blueprint for pluralist data tools and infrastructure

    Antranig Basman. “The Naturalist’s Friend - A case study and blueprint for pluralist data tools and infrastructure”. In:Proceedings of the 30th Annual Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, PPIG 2019, Newcastle University, UK, August 28 - 30, 2019. Edited by Mariana Marasoiu, Luke Church, and Lindsay Marshall. Psychology of Programming ...

    2019

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Coupled schema transformation and data conversion for XML and SQL

    Pablo Berdaguer, Alcino Cunha, Hugo Pacheco, and Joost Visser. “Coupled schema transformation and data conversion for XML and SQL”. In:Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages. PADL’07.Nice,France:Springer-Verlag,2007,pages2...

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    A selective undo mechanism for graphical user interfaces based on command objects

    Thomas Berlage. “A selective undo mechanism for graphical user interfaces based on command objects”. In:ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.1.3 (Sept. 1994), pages 269–294.issn: 1073-0516.doi:10.1145/196699.196721.url: https://doi.org/10.1145/196699.196721

    1994

  3. [11]

    Future of End-User Software En- gineering: Beyond the Silos

    Margaret M. Burnett and Brad A. Myers. “Future of End-User Software En- gineering: Beyond the Silos”. In:Future of Software Engineering Proceedings. FOSE 2014. Hyderabad, India: Association for Computing Machinery, 2014, pages 201–211.isbn: 9781450328654.doi:10.1145/2593882.2593896

    2014

  4. [12]

    A Language-Based Version Control System for Python

    Luís Carvalho and João Costa Seco. “A Language-Based Version Control System for Python”. In:38th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP 2024). Edited by Jonathan Aldrich and Guido Salvaneschi. Volume 313. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIP...

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    ScottChaconandBenStraub.ProGit.2nd.USA:Apress,2014.isbn:1484200772

    2014

  6. [14]

    Alberto Hernández Chillón, Meike Klettke, Diego Sevilla Ruiz, and Jesús García Molina.A Taxonomy of Schema Changes for NoSQL Databases. 2022. arXiv: 2205.11660 [cs.DB]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Propagating Schema Changes to Code: An Approach Based on a Unified Data Model

    Alberto Hernández Chillón, Jesús García Molina, José Ramón Hoyos, and María José Ortín. “Propagating Schema Changes to Code: An Approach Based on a Unified Data Model”. In:CEUR Workshop Proceedings. Volume 3379. CEUR-WS, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    A case of computa- tionalthinking:Thesubtleeffectofhiddendependenciesontheuserexperience of version control

    Luke Church, Emma Söderberg, and Elayabharath Elango. “A case of computa- tionalthinking:Thesubtleeffectofhiddendependenciesontheuserexperience of version control.” In:PPIG. 2014, page 16

    2014

  9. [17]

    On the concurrent versioning of metamodels and models: challenges and possible solutions

    Antonio Cicchetti, Federico Ciccozzi, Thomas Leveque, and Alfonso Pieran- tonio. “On the concurrent versioning of metamodels and models: challenges and possible solutions”. In:Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Model Comparison in Practice. IWMCP ’11. Zurich, Swi...

    2011

  10. [18]

    Co-transformations in Database Appli- cations Evolution

    Anthony Cleve and Jean-Luc Hainaut. “Co-transformations in Database Appli- cations Evolution”. In:Generative and Transformational Techniques in Software Engineering: International Summer School, GTTSE 2005, Braga, Portugal, July 4-8, 2005. Revised Papers. Edited by Ralf Lämmel...

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    Apache CouchDB Contributors.CouchDB Replication and Conflict Model. 2025. url:https://docs.couchdb.org/en/stable/replication/conflicts.html#(visited on 2025-09-14)

    2025

  12. [20]

    2025.url:https://automerge

    Automerge Contributors.Automerge Conflicts. 2025.url:https://automerge. org/docs/reference/documents/conflicts/(visited on 2025-09-14)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Type-Safe Two-Level Data Transformation

    Alcino Cunha, José Nuno Oliveira, and Joost Visser. “Type-Safe Two-Level Data Transformation”. In:FM 2006: Formal Methods. Edited by Jayadev Misra, Tobias Nipkow, and Emil Sekerinski. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006, pages 284–299.isbn: 978-3-540-37216-5

    2006

  14. [22]

    Graceful database schema evolution: the PRISM workbench

    Carlo A. Curino, Hyun J. Moon, and Carlo Zaniolo. “Graceful database schema evolution: the PRISM workbench”. In:Proceedings VLDB Endowment1.1 (Aug. 2008), pages 761–772.issn: 2150-8097.doi:10.14778/1453856.1453939

    2008

  15. [23]

    MIT press, 1993

    Allen Cypher and Daniel Conrad Halbert.Watch what I do: Programming by demonstration. MIT press, 1993

    1993

  16. [24]

    Bidirectional Transformations: A Cross-Discipline Perspective

    KrzysztofCzarnecki,J.NathanFoster,ZhenjiangHu,RalfLämmel,AndySchürr, and James F. Terwilliger. “Bidirectional Transformations: A Cross-Discipline Perspective”.In:TheoryandPracticeofModelTransformations.EditedbyRichard F. Paige. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2...

    2009

  17. [25]

    EvolveDB: a tool for model driven schema evolution

    Torben Eckwert, Michael Guckert, and Gabriele Taentzer. “EvolveDB: a tool for model driven schema evolution”. In:Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion Proceedings. MODELS ’22. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Ass...

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Interaction vs. Abstraction: Managed Copy and Paste

    Jonathan Edwards and Tomas Petricek. “Interaction vs. Abstraction: Managed Copy and Paste”. In:Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on Programming Abstractions and Interactive Notations, Tools, and Environments. PAINT 2022. Auckland, New Zealand: Associati...

    2022

  19. [27]

    Jonathan Edwards and Tomas Petricek.Typed Image-based Programming with Structure Editing. 2021. arXiv:2110.08993 [cs.PL].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2110.08993. 29 Baseline: Operation-Based Evolution and Versioning of Data

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Schema Evolution in Interactive Programming Systems

    Jonathan Edwards, Tomas Petricek, Tijs van der Storm, and Geoffrey Litt. “Schema Evolution in Interactive Programming Systems”. In:The Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming9.1 (Oct. 2024).issn: 2473-7321.doi:10. 22152/programming-journal.org/2025/9/2.url:http://dx.doi.o...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Concurrency Control in Groupware Systems

    C. A. Ellis and S. J. Gibbs. “Concurrency Control in Groupware Systems”. In: Proceedings of the 1989 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Manage- ment of Data. SIGMOD ’89. Portland, Oregon, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 1989, pages 399–407.isbn: 0897913175.doi:10...

    1989

  22. [30]

    Operation-based versioning as a foundation for live executable models

    Joeri Exelmans, Ciprian Teodorov, and Hans Vangheluwe. “Operation-based versioning as a foundation for live executable models”. In:Software and Systems Modeling24.3 (2025), pages 721–739.doi:10.1007/s10270-024-01212-x.url: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-024-01212-x

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    Combinators for bidirectional tree transformations: A linguistic approach to the view-update problem

    J. Nathan Foster, Michael B. Greenwald, Jonathan T. Moore, Benjamin C. Pierce, and Alan Schmitt. “Combinators for bidirectional tree transformations: A linguistic approach to the view-update problem”. In:ACM Transsctions on Programming Languages and Systems29.3 (May 2007), 17–...

    2007

  24. [32]

    [Online; accessed 29-August- 2025].url:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPCxtFkLa7g

    Alexander von Franqué.Never use git cherry-pick. [Online; accessed 29-August- 2025].url:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPCxtFkLa7g

    2025

  25. [33]

    USA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1984.isbn: 0201113724

    Adele Goldberg.SMALLTALK-80: The Interactive Programming Environment. USA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1984.isbn: 0201113724

    1984

  26. [34]

    CoDEL – A Relationally Complete Language for Database Evolution

    Kai Herrmann, Hannes Voigt, Andreas Behrend, and Wolfgang Lehner. “CoDEL – A Relationally Complete Language for Database Evolution”. In:Advances in Databases and Information Systems. Edited by Morzy Tadeusz, Patrick Val- duriez, and Ladjel Bellatreche. Cham: Springer Internati...

    2015

  27. [35]

    Living in Parallel Realities: Co-Existing Schema Versions with a Bidi- rectional Database Evolution Language

    Kai Herrmann, Hannes Voigt, Andreas Behrend, Jonas Rausch, and Wolfgang Lehner. “Living in Parallel Realities: Co-Existing Schema Versions with a Bidi- rectional Database Evolution Language”. In:Proceedings of the 2017 ACM In- ternational Conference on Management of Data. SIGM...

    2017

  28. [36]

    An Extensive Catalog of Operators for the Coupled Evolution of Metamodels and Models

    Markus Herrmannsdoerfer, Sander D. Vermolen, and Guido Wachsmuth. “An Extensive Catalog of Operators for the Coupled Evolution of Metamodels and Models”. In:Software Language Engineering. Edited by Brian Malloy, Steffen Staab, and Mark van den Brand. Berlin, Heidelberg: Spring...

    2011

  29. [37]

    Edit lenses

    Martin Hofmann, Benjamin Pierce, and Daniel Wagner. “Edit lenses”. In:Pro- ceedings of the 39th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. POPL ’12. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2012, pages 495–508.isbn: 978145031...

    2012

  30. [39]

    Springer, 2024.isbn: 978-981-97-6428-0

    ZhenjiangHu,MakotoOnizuka,andMasatoshiYoshikawa,editors.Bidirectional Collaborative Data Management: Collaboration Frameworks for Decentralized Systems. Springer, 2024.isbn: 978-981-97-6428-0

    2024

  31. [40]

    Synql: A CRDT- Based Approach for Replicated Relational Databases with Integrity Constraints

    Claudia-Lavinia Ignat, Victorien Elvinger, and Habibatou Ba. “Synql: A CRDT- Based Approach for Replicated Relational Databases with Integrity Constraints”. In:Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Edited by Rolando Martins. Volume LNCS- 14677. Distributed Applications and Intero...

    2024 doi

  32. [41]

    2024.url:https://docs.edgedb.com/guides/ migrations(visited on 2024-05-01)

    EdgeDB Inc.Schema migrations. 2024.url:https://docs.edgedb.com/guides/ migrations(visited on 2024-05-01)

    2024

  33. [42]

    Technical Dimensions of Programming Systems

    Joel Jakubovic, Jonathan Edwards, and Tomas Petricek. “Technical Dimensions of Programming Systems”. In:The Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming 7.3 (2023).issn: 2473-7321.doi:10.22152/PROGRAMMING-JOURNAL.ORG/2023/ 7/13

    2023 doi

  34. [43]

    Evolution Lan- guage Framework for Persistent Objects

    Tetsuo Kamina, Tomoyuki Aotani, and Hidehiko Masuhara. “Evolution Lan- guage Framework for Persistent Objects”. In:The Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming10.1 (Feb. 15, 2025).doi:10.22152/programming-journal.org/ 2025/10/12.url:https://2025.programming-conference.org/

    2025 doi

  35. [44]

    Wrangler: interactive visual specification of data transformation scripts

    SeanKandel,AndreasPaepcke,JosephHellerstein,andJeffreyHeer.“Wrangler: interactive visual specification of data transformation scripts”. In:Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’11. Vancou- ver, BC, Canada: Association for Computing Ma...

    2011

  36. [45]

    AFormalInvestigation of Diff3

    SanjeevKhanna,KeshavKunal,andBenjaminC.Pierce.“AFormalInvestigation of Diff3”. In:FSTTCS 2007: Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science. Edited by V. Arvind and Sanjiva Prasad. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, pages 485–496.isbn:...

    2007

  37. [46]

    Coupled software transformations revisited

    Ralf Lämmel. “Coupled software transformations revisited”. In:Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineer- ing. SLE 2016. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Association for Computing Machinery, 2016, pages 239–252.isbn: 9781450344470.doi:10....

    2016

  38. [47]

    A Survey of Schema Evolution in Object-Oriented Databases

    Xue Li. “A Survey of Schema Evolution in Object-Oriented Databases”. In: TOOLS 1999: 31st International Conference on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems, 22-25 September 1999, Nanjing, China. IEEE Computer Society, 1999, pages 362–371.doi:10.1109/TOOLS.1999.79...

    1999

  39. [48]

    2020.url:https://www.inkandswitch.com/cambria

    Geoffrey Litt, Peter van Hardenberg, and Henry Orion.Project Cambria: Trans- late your data with lenses. 2020.url:https://www.inkandswitch.com/cambria. html(visited on 2020-10-01)

    2020

  40. [49]

    2024.url:https://www.inkandswitch

    Geoffrey Litt, Paul Sonnentag, Max Schöning, Adam Wiggins, Peter van Hard- enberg, and Orion Henry.Patchwork. 2024.url:https://www.inkandswitch. com/patchwork/notebook/(visited on 2025-09-14)

    2024

  41. [50]

    [Online; accessed 29-August-2025].url:https://xkcd

    Randall Munroe.Git. [Online; accessed 29-August-2025].url:https://xkcd. com/1597/

    2025

  42. [51]

    Tombstone Transformation Functions for Ensuring Consistency in Collaborative Editing Systems

    Gerald Oster, Pascal Molli, Pascal Urso, and Abdessamad Imine. “Tombstone Transformation Functions for Ensuring Consistency in Collaborative Editing Systems”. In:2006 International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Net- working, Applications and Worksharing. 2006, pages 1...

    2006

  43. [52]

    What’s wrong with git? a concep- tual design analysis

    Santiago Perez De Rosso and Daniel Jackson. “What’s wrong with git? a concep- tual design analysis”. In:Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming & Software. On- ward! 2013. Indianapolis, Indiana, USA: Assoc...

    2013

  44. [53]

    Towards scalable dataframe systems

    Devin Petersohn, Stephen Macke, Doris Xin, William Ma, Doris Lee, Xiangxi Mo, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Joseph M. Hellerstein, Anthony D. Joseph, and Aditya Parameswaran. “Towards scalable dataframe systems”. In:Procedings VLDB Endowment13.12 (July 2020), pages 2033–2046.issn: 2150-...

    2020

  45. [54]

    AI Assistants: A Framework for Semi-Automated Data Wrangling

    Tomas Petricek, Gerrit J. J. van den Burg, Alfredo Nazábal, Taha Ceritli, Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz, and Christopher K. I. Williams. “AI Assistants: A Framework for Semi-Automated Data Wrangling”. In:IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering35.9 (2023), pages 9295–9306.do...

    2023

  46. [55]

    Denicek: Computational Substrate for Document-Oriented End-User Programming

    Tomas Petricek and Jonathan Edwards. “Denicek: Computational Substrate for Document-Oriented End-User Programming”. In:Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. UIST ’25. Association for Computing Machinery, 2025.isbn: 979840072037...

    2025

  47. [56]

    An Integrat- ing, Transformation-Oriented Approach to Concurrency Control and Undo in Group Editors

    Matthias Ressel, Doris Nitsche-Ruhland, and Rul Gunzenhäuser. “An Integrat- ing, Transformation-Oriented Approach to Concurrency Control and Undo in Group Editors”. In:Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. CSCW ’96. Boston, Massachusett...

    1996

  48. [57]

    Sadalage and Martin Fowler.NoSQL Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Emerging World of Polyglot Persistence

    Pramodkumar J. Sadalage and Martin Fowler.NoSQL Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Emerging World of Polyglot Persistence. Pearson Education, 2012.isbn: 9780133036121. 32 Jonathan Edwards and Tomas Petricek

    2012

  49. [58]

    Stefanie Scherzinger, Meike Klettke, and Uta Störl.Managing Schema Evolution in NoSQL Data Stores. 2013. arXiv:1308.0514 [cs.DB]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Research Report RR-7506

    Marc Shapiro, Nuno Preguiça, Carlos Baquero, and Marek Zawirski.A compre- hensive study of Convergent and Commutative Replicated Data Types. Research Report RR-7506. Inria – Centre Paris-Rocquencourt ; INRIA, Jan. 2011, page 50. url:https://inria.hal.science/inria-00555588

    2011

  51. [60]

    Darwin: A Data Platform for NoSQL Schema Evo- lution Management and Data Migration

    Uta Störl and Meike Klettke. “Darwin: A Data Platform for NoSQL Schema Evo- lution Management and Data Migration”. In:Proceedings of the Workshops of the EDBT/ICDT 2022 Joint Conference, Edinburgh, UK, March 29, 2022. Volume 3135. CEUR-WS.org, Mar. 2022.url:https://ceur-ws.org...

    2022

  52. [61]

    NoSQL Schema Evolution and Data Migration: State-of-the-Art and Opportunities (Tutorial)

    Uta Störl, Meike Klettke, and Stefanie Scherzinger. “NoSQL Schema Evolution and Data Migration: State-of-the-Art and Opportunities (Tutorial)”. In:Pro- ceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT). Apr. 2020.doi:10.5441/002/edbt.2020.87

    2020 doi

  53. [62]

    Semantic deltas for live DSL environments

    Tijs van der Storm. “Semantic deltas for live DSL environments”. In:2013 1st International Workshop on Live Programming (LIVE). 2013, pages 35–38.doi: 10.1109/LIVE.2013.6617347

    2013

  54. [63]

    Undo any operation at any time in group editors

    Chengzheng Sun. “Undo any operation at any time in group editors”. In: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. CSCW ’00. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA: Association for Computing Machinery,2000,pages191–200.isbn:1581132220.doi:10.1145/35...

    2000

  55. [64]

    2015.url:https://downloads.gemtalksystems.com/docs/GemStone 64/3.2.x/GS64-ProgGuide-3.2/10-ClassHistory.htm(visited on 2024-05-01)

    GemTalk Systems.Gemstone Programmer’s Guide: Class versions and Instance Migration. 2015.url:https://downloads.gemtalksystems.com/docs/GemStone 64/3.2.x/GS64-ProgGuide-3.2/10-ClassHistory.htm(visited on 2024-05-01)

    2015

  56. [65]

    Generating database migrations for evolving web applications

    Sander Daniël Vermolen, Guido Wachsmuth, and Eelco Visser. “Generating database migrations for evolving web applications”. In:Proceedings of the 10th ACM International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engi- neering. GPCE ’11. Portland, Oregon, USA: Associatio...

    2011

  57. [66]

    Coupled Transformation of Schemas, Documents, Queries, and Constraints

    Joost Visser. “Coupled Transformation of Schemas, Documents, Queries, and Constraints”. In:Electronic Notes Theoretical Computer Science200.3 (May 2008), pages 3–23.issn: 1571-0661.doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2008.04.090

    2008 doi

  58. [67]

    Research Report RR-6516

    Stéphane Weiss, Pascal Urso, and Pascal Molli.A Flexible Undo Framework for Collaborative Editing. Research Report RR-6516. INRIA, 2008.url:https: //inria.hal.science/inria-00275754

    2008

  59. [68]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller_columns&oldid=1305075621

    Wikipedia contributors.Miller columns — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miller_columns&oldid=1305075621. [Online; accessed 12-September-2025]. 2025. 33 Baseline: Operation-Based Evolution and Versioning of Data About the authors Jon...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.