DOCSLIB.ORG

Architecting Systems with UML 2.0 Modeling

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Architecting Systems with UML 2.0 Modeling featuremodeling Architecting Systems with UML 2.0 Morgan Björkander and Cris Kobryn, Telelogic ignaling the end of the method wars, the Object Management Group (OMG) first standardized the Unified Modeling Lan- guage1 in 1997. The software industry rapidly accepted it as the S standard modeling language for specifying software and system architectures. Although UML is primarily intended for general-purpose modeling, it’s receiving extensive use in diverse specialized areas, such as business process modeling and real-time-systems modeling. Despite these successes, development tools crosoft’s .NET. The second is the common use have been slow to realize UML’s full potential. of more mature modeling languages, such as In addition, the software industry has evolved SDL (Specification and Description Language)2 considerably during the last six years, and the and ROOM (Real-Time Object-Oriented first version of UML (UML 1.x) is now dated. Modeling),3 to specify components and system Two examples illustrate the difficulty of pro- architectures for real-time applications. If you gramming in UML 1.x. The first is the main- try to model either of these demanding do- streaming of component-based development mains with UML 1.x, you will soon find that it for enterprise applications, as with the propa- does not cope well with their paradigms or gation of J2EE (Java 2 Platform, Enterprise complexity. Consequently, UML tools serving Edition), COM+ (the extension to Microsoft’s these domains have had to provide proprietary Component Object Model), and, recently, Mi- language extensions to address UML’s preci- sion and scalability limitations. During the last few years, application cre- Despite the successes of UML 1.x, modeling tools have been slow ation’s focus has shifted from code to models, and model-driven development has taken off. to realize its full potential for specifying software and system Various model transformation and code gener- architectures. UML 2.0 will make the language more current and ation techniques let you automatically generate improve its expressive power and precision. applications from models. Some tools take this 0740-7459/03/$17.00 © 2003 IEEE Published by the IEEE Computer Society IEEE SOFTWARE 57 ■ Required interfaces describe the services pE iFuelMonitor that others must provide for the class to op- erate properly in a particular environment. iFuelControl iAngle ElectricSystem This distinction supports the development of iElectricity iPower each class as a standalone entity that does not need to know anything about the entities that implement the required interfaces. UML also pS iFeedback allows you to specify provided and required Steering Class interfaces for components, but because of space iAngle Port limitations, here we focus on the use of inter- Provided interface faces with classes. iSteering Required interface A UML class might be used in many differ- ent ways, because different stakeholders re- quire different sets of services. Although im- plementing multiple interfaces on a class Figure 1. Classes might partially express these different uses, with ports and one step further, and also let you execute the developers also need to be able to group inter- interfaces. models. In this context, a modeling language faces belonging to particular stakeholders. can serve as a visual programming language, Each such group provides a different view of but with variable levels of abstraction. This ap- the class. UML 2.0 realizes this through the proach allows much earlier verification than is port construct (see Figure 1). As we will see, normally possible, because you don’t need to these ports play another important role when produce code in order to check the system’s you assemble classes. functionality. Unfortunately, UML lacks the A port connects a class’s internals to its en- precision to properly handle such models. vironment. It functions as an intentional open- Aside from UML 1.x’s inability to ade- ing in the class’s encapsulation through which quately support such technology advances, it messages are sent either into or out of the presents other significant problems for tool class, depending on the port’s provided or re- vendors and users. To address these issues, the quired interfaces. A port that has both pro- OMG process requires a major revision of the vided and required interfaces is bidirectional. language. Fortunately, the standardization process for creating UML 2.0 started more Decomposing a system than three years ago and is nearing completion. A particular influence on UML 2.0’s use of In this article, we look at some major improve- interfaces has been component-based develop- ments proposed for UML 2.0.4 The new con- ment, which aims to hierarchically decompose a cepts are not forced on users. Backward com- system into smaller and smaller parts and then patibility is a strong requirement for UML 2.0, connect (“wire”) these parts together. Of course, and you should be able to continue using the once you’ve defined a part, you can reuse it in basic language as you did before, if you desire. many other contexts. The provided interfaces let you view a class as a black-box component, Modeling structure whose implementation is known only if you For most system architectures, a fundamen- look inside it. You can also describe the order in tal necessity is specifying their structures. A which its services can be invoked by using alter- sound structure makes distributing the sys- native views (for example, using interactions or tem’s development and maintaining its integ- state machines) that don’t directly expose the in- rity easier over time. Many modern program- ternal implementation. Naturally, these choices ming languages have adopted interfaces as a affect how you describe your structures. means to describe the services available from Figure 2 defines a typical compositional specific classes. Here we distinguish between structure of an Automobile class. The dia- two kinds of interfaces for classes: gram provides a hierarchical view of the parts that make up an automobile. ■ Provided interfaces describe the services In contrast, Figure 3a shows how the auto- that a class implements. mobile’s parts are connected to each other. 58 IEEE SOFTWARE http://computer.org/software Figure 2. An Automobile Automobile class’s 0..1 compositional structure. 1 11 1 1 PowerTrain Steering ElectricSystem VehicleStructure FuelSystem 0..1 0..1 111 11 PowerSteeringPump Rack SteeringColumn Body Chassis Class Whole-part compositions Figure 3. An Automobile class’s class Automobile :PowerTrain internal structure pP (some details omitted): (a) white- iFuel box view; (b) black- iSteering :Steering iPower :FuelSystem pF2 pA box view. iPower iSteering iExhaust pS pF1 iElectricity :ElectricSystem iAngle pE (a) pA iFuel iSteering Automobile iExhaust (b) Provided Required Port Part Connector interface interface This white-box view of the class shows the mentary views let you decompose systems of Automobile class’s different parts—that is, arbitrary complexity. The class owning the Automobile’s implementation. This view of parts is usually called the container class; each the composition tree focuses on the relation- part represents the use of a class in the context ships between parts at the same level and on of the container. Another way to think of a how connectors join them. These connectors part is as a set of instances of a particular type. describe the communications paths that are This example also shows the second use of valid in this particular context. You can zoom ports: as a connection point of a class, through out of this view, which would give you the which you can connect parts. The context in black-box view of the Automobile class (see which a class is used determines how it inter- Figure 3b), or zoom into any of the parts to acts with its environment; in each such con- access its white-box view. The two comple- text it can function as a part that connects to July/August 2003 IEEE SOFTWARE 59 of the semantics of hierarchical decomposition. class CDPlayer Whenever an instance of the container class is created, the container instance also creates in- stances representing its parts. Similarly, when- iControl iInitiation ever an instance of a container class is deleted, that instance deletes its part instances. :Record [*] Acting on actions iRead One of the UML 2.0 work’s great under- takings has been to integrate activities with their related actions. (An action is a funda- mental unit of behavioral specification that :Player iSpeaker iSpeaker represents some transformation or processing. Actions tend to be general, and apply to all kinds of behavior—for instance, state ma- chines, interactions, or activities. An activity is Behavioral Provided Required Port Connector Part the basic behavioral construct used for model- port interface interface ing activity diagrams, which specify behavior using a hybrid control and dataflow model.) A Figure 4. A class’s few years ago, an initiative began to make internal structure other parts. In the previous example, the Pow- UML able to specify executable models. This with behavioral erTrain class functioned as a part in the con- initiative essentially replaced the previous ac- ports. text of an Automobile class; it would have tion model with a new one in which you could been connected differently in the context of a express actions with precise procedural se- Boat class. mantics. The overlap with activities was glar- ing, however. UML 2.0 has significantly im- Adding behavior to the mix proved this part of the language; UML actions A system does not consist of structure are now defined in as much as detail as an or- alone. In some cases, as we saw previously, a dinary programming language’s actions (or class’s behavior is delegated to its parts, but in statements).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 07 Requirements What About RFP/RFB/Rfis?
    CMPSCI520/620 07 Requirements & UML Intro 07 Requirements SW Requirements Specification • Readings • How do we communicate the Requirements to others? • [cK99] Cris Kobryn, Co-Chair, “Introduction to UML: Structural and Use Case Modeling,” UML Revision Task Force Object Modeling with OMG UML Tutorial • It is common practice to capture them in an SRS Series © 1999-2001 OMG and Contributors: Crossmeta, EDS, IBM, Enea Data, • But an SRS doesn’t need to be a single paper document Hewlett-Packard, IntelliCorp, Kabira Technologies, Klasse Objecten, Rational Software, Telelogic, Unisys http://www.omg.org/technology/uml/uml_tutorial.htm • Purpose • [OSBB99] Gunnar Övergaard, Bran Selic, Conrad Bock and Morgan Björkande, “Behavioral Modeling,” UML Revision Task Force, Object Modeling with OMG UML • Contractual requirements Tutorial Series © 1999-2001 OMG and Contributors: Crossmeta, EDS, IBM, Enea elicitation Data, Hewlett-Packard, IntelliCorp, Kabira Technologies, Klasse Objecten, Rational • Baseline Software, Telelogic, Unisys http://www.omg.org/technology/uml/uml_tutorial.htm • for evaluating subsequent products • [laM01] Maciaszek, L.A. (2001): Requirements Analysis and System Design. • for change control requirements Developing Information Systems with UML, Addison Wesley Copyright © 2000 by analysis Addison Wesley • Audience • [cB04] Bock, Conrad, Advanced Analysis and Design with UML • Users, Purchasers requirements http://www.kabira.com/bock/ specification • [rM02] Miller, Randy, “Practical UML: A hands-on introduction for developers,”
    [Show full text]
  • Sysml, the Language of MBSE Paul White
    Welcome to SysML, the Language of MBSE Paul White October 8, 2019 Brief Introduction About Myself • Work Experience • 2015 – Present: KIHOMAC / BAE – Layton, Utah • 2011 – 2015: Astronautics Corporation of America – Milwaukee, Wisconsin • 2001 – 2011: L-3 Communications – Greenville, Texas • 2000 – 2001: Hynix – Eugene, Oregon • 1999 – 2000: Raytheon – Greenville, Texas • Education • 2019: OMG OCSMP Model Builder—Fundamental Certification • 2011: Graduate Certification in Systems Engineering and Architecting – Stevens Institute of Technology • 1999 – 2004: M.S. Computer Science – Texas A&M University at Commerce • 1993 – 1998: B.S. Computer Science – Texas A&M University • INCOSE • Chapters: Wasatch (2015 – Present), Chicagoland (2011 – 2015), North Texas (2007 – 2011) • Conferences: WSRC (2018), GLRCs (2012-2017) • CSEP: (2017 – Present) • 2019 INCOSE Outstanding Service Award • 2019 INCOSE Wasatch -- Most Improved Chapter Award & Gold Circle Award • Utah Engineers Council (UEC) • 2019 & 2018 Engineer of the Year (INCOSE) for Utah Engineers Council (UEC) • Vice Chair • Family • Married 14 years • Three daughters (1, 12, & 10) 2 Introduction 3 Our Topics • Definitions and Expectations • SysML Overview • Basic Features of SysML • Modeling Tools and Techniques • Next Steps 4 What is Model-based Systems Engineering (MBSE)? Model-based systems engineering (MBSE) is “the formalized application of modeling to support system requirements, design, analysis, verification and validation activities beginning in the conceptual design phase and continuing throughout development and later life cycle phases.” -- INCOSE SE Vision 2020 5 What is Model-based Systems Engineering (MBSE)? “Formal systems modeling is standard practice for specifying, analyzing, designing, and verifying systems, and is fully integrated with other engineering models. System models are adapted to the application domain, and include a broad spectrum of models for representing all aspects of systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Design of Instructional Modeling Language for Learning Objects and Learning Objectsâ•Ž Repositories
    University of Northern Colorado Scholarship & Creative Works @ Digital UNC Dissertations Student Research 8-2019 Design of Instructional Modeling Language for Learning Objects and Learning Objects’ Repositories Altaf Siddiqui Follow this and additional works at: https://digscholarship.unco.edu/dissertations Recommended Citation Siddiqui, Altaf, "Design of Instructional Modeling Language for Learning Objects and Learning Objects’ Repositories" (2019). Dissertations. 588. https://digscholarship.unco.edu/dissertations/588 This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at Scholarship & Creative Works @ Digital UNC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholarship & Creative Works @ Digital UNC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ©2019 ALTAF SIDDIQUI ALL RIGHTS RESERVED UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO Greeley, Colorado The Graduate School DESIGN OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELING LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING OBJECTS AND LEARNING OBJECTS’ REPOSITORIES A Capstone Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Altaf Siddiqui College of Education and Behavioral Sciences Department of Educational Technology August 2019 This Capstone by: Altaf Siddiqui Entitled: Design of Instructional Modeling Language for Learning Objects and Learning Objects Repositories has been approved as meeting the requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Audiology in College of Education and Behavioral Sciences in Department of Educational Technology
    [Show full text]
  • Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF0)
    NIST U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PUBLICATIONS £ Technology Administration National Institute of Standards and Technology FIPS PUB 183 FEDERAL INFORMATION PROCESSING STANDARDS PUBLICATION INTEGRATION DEFINITION FOR FUNCTION MODELING (IDEFO) » Category: Software Standard SUBCATEGORY: MODELING TECHNIQUES 1993 December 21 183 PUB FIPS JK- 45C .AS A3 //I S3 IS 93 FIPS PUB 183 FEDERAL INFORMATION PROCESSING STANDARDS PUBLICATION INTEGRATION DEFINITION FOR FUNCTION MODELING (IDEFO) Category: Software Standard Subcategory: Modeling Techniques Computer Systems Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Issued December 21, 1993 U.S. Department of Commerce Ronald H. Brown, Secretary Technology Administration Mary L. Good, Under Secretary for Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology Arati Prabhakar, Director Foreword The Federal Information Processing Standards Publication Series of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the official publication relating to standards and guidelines adopted and promulgated under the provisions of Section 111 (d) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended by the Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law 100-235. These mandates have given the Secretary of Commerce and NIST important responsibilities for improving the utilization and management of computer and related telecommunications systems in the Federal Government. The NIST, through its Computer Systems Laboratory, provides leadership, technical guidance,
    [Show full text]
  • Sysml Distilled: a Brief Guide to the Systems Modeling Language
    ptg11539604 Praise for SysML Distilled “In keeping with the outstanding tradition of Addison-Wesley’s techni- cal publications, Lenny Delligatti’s SysML Distilled does not disappoint. Lenny has done a masterful job of capturing the spirit of OMG SysML as a practical, standards-based modeling language to help systems engi- neers address growing system complexity. This book is loaded with matter-of-fact insights, starting with basic MBSE concepts to distin- guishing the subtle differences between use cases and scenarios to illu- mination on namespaces and SysML packages, and even speaks to some of the more esoteric SysML semantics such as token flows.” — Jeff Estefan, Principal Engineer, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory “The power of a modeling language, such as SysML, is that it facilitates communication not only within systems engineering but across disci- plines and across the development life cycle. Many languages have the ptg11539604 potential to increase communication, but without an effective guide, they can fall short of that objective. In SysML Distilled, Lenny Delligatti combines just the right amount of technology with a common-sense approach to utilizing SysML toward achieving that communication. Having worked in systems and software engineering across many do- mains for the last 30 years, and having taught computer languages, UML, and SysML to many organizations and within the college setting, I find Lenny’s book an invaluable resource. He presents the concepts clearly and provides useful and pragmatic examples to get you off the ground quickly and enables you to be an effective modeler.” — Thomas W. Fargnoli, Lead Member of the Engineering Staff, Lockheed Martin “This book provides an excellent introduction to SysML.
    [Show full text]
  • Design and Implementation of the L+C Modeling Language
    Design and implementation of the L+C modeling language Radoslaw Karwowski and Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz Department of Computer Science University of Calgary Abstract L-systems are parallel grammars that provide a theoretical foundation for a class of programs used in procedural image synthesis and simulation of plant development. In particular, the formalism of L-systems guides the construction of declarative languages for specifying input to these programs. We outline key factors that have motivated the development of L-system- based languages in the past, and introduce a new language, L+C, that addresses the shortcom- ings of its predecessors. We also describe the implementation of L+C, in which an existing language, C++, was extended with constructs specific to L-systems. This implementation methodology made it possible to develop a powerful modeling system in a relatively short pe- riod of time. 1. Background L-systems were conceived as a rule-based formalism for reasoning on developing multicellular organisms that form linear or branching filaments [Lindenmayer, 1968]. Soon after their introduction, L-systems also began to be used as a foundation of visual modeling and simulation programs, and computer languages for specifying the models [Baker and Herman, 1972]. Subsequently they also found applications in the generation of fractals [Szilard and Quinton, 1979; Prusinkiewicz, 1986] and geometric modeling [Prusinkiewicz et al., 2003]. A common factor uniting these diverse applications is the treatment of structure and form as a result of development. A historical perspective of the L-system-based software and its practical applications is presented in [Prusinkiewicz, 1997]. According to the L-system approach, a developing structure is represented by a string of symbols over a predefined alphabet V.
    [Show full text]
  • UML 2001: a Standardization Odyssey
    UML 2001: A Standardization Odyssey As the UML reaches the ripe age of four, both its proponents and its critics are scanning the recent changes in the UML 1.3 revision. CRIS KOBRYN In a relatively short period of time the Unified Modeling Language has emerged as the software industry’s dominant modeling language. UML is not only a de facto modeling language standard; it is fast becoming a de jure standard. Nearly two years ago the Object Management Group (OMG) adopted UML as its standard modeling language. As an approved Publicly Available Specification (PAS) submitter to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the OMG is proposing the UML specification for international timescales of standards usually conflict with the standardization. It is anticipated that the “fast competitive need to use the latest technology as track” PAS process will complete sometime next early as possible. From a technical perspective, the year, at which time UML will be formally recog- need to achieve consensus encourages “design by nized as an international standard for information committee” processes. In this sort of environment, technology. sound technical tradeoffs are often overridden by The major benefits of international standardiza- inferior political compromises. Too frequently the tion for a specification include wide recognition and resulting specifications become bloated with patches acceptance, which typically enlarge the market for in a manner similar to the way laws become fattened products based on it. However, these benefits often with riders in “pork belly” legislation. demand a high price. Standardization processes are This article explores how the UML is faring in typically formal and protracted, seeking to accom- the international standardization process.
    [Show full text]
  • UML Why Develop a UML Model?
    App Development & Modelling BSc in Applied Computing Produced Eamonn de Leastar ([email protected]) by Department of Computing, Maths & Physics Waterford Institute of Technology http://www.wit.ie http://elearning.wit.ie Introduction to UML Why develop a UML model? • Provide structure for problem solving • Experiment to explore multiple solutions • Furnish abstractions to manage complexity • Decrease development costs • Manage the risk of mistakes #3 The Challenge #4 The Vision #5 Why do we model graphically? " Graphics reveal data.! " Edward Tufte$ The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, 1983$ " 1 bitmap = 1 megaword.! " Anonymous visual modeler #6 Building Blocks of UML " The basic building blocks of UML are:! " model elements (classes, interfaces, components, use cases, etc.)! " relationships (associations, generalization, dependencies, etc.)! " diagrams (class diagrams, use case diagrams, interaction diagrams, etc.)! " Simple building blocks are used to create large, complex structures! " eg elements, bonds and molecules in chemistry! " eg components, connectors and circuit boards in hardware #7 Example : Classifier View #8 Example: Instance View #9 UML Modeling Process " Use Case! " Structural! " Behavioural! " Architectural #10 Use Case Visual Paradigm Help #11 Structural Modeling Visual Paradigm Help #12 Behavioural Modeling Visual Paradigm Help #13 Architectural Modeling Visual Paradigm Help #14 Structural Modeling " Core concepts! " Diagram Types #15 Structural Modeling Core Elements " a view of an system that emphasizes
    [Show full text]
  • Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize
    Using DOORS & Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes Bob Sherman - [email protected] [email protected] Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes - v1.0 © 2005 Galactic Solutions Group LLC – Authors: Bob Sherman ([email protected]), [email protected] 1 © Telelogic AB Agenda • The Unmet Need • The Solution – Strategy: Business Driven Application Lifecycle – Tactics: Business Modeling via DOORS & VISIO – Tactics: DOORS/VISIO Integration • Case Study Results Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes - v1.0 © 2005 Galactic Solutions Group LLC – Authors: Bob Sherman ([email protected]), [email protected] 2 © Telelogic AB Chronic IT Project Problems Top IT Project Problems • User/Stakeholder Engagement Outages • Unclear Objectives • Incomplete or Changing Requirements *Standish Group Chaos Studies Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes - v1.0 © 2005 Galactic Solutions Group LLC – Authors: Bob Sherman ([email protected]), [email protected] 3 © Telelogic AB Chronic IT Project Problems Rework • 35-65% of project budget *Standish Group spent on rework. • ~50% of rework is due to requirements errors * IEEE & University of Southern California Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes - v1.0 © 2005 Galactic Solutions Group LLC – Authors:
    [Show full text]
  • Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes
    Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes “The Business Driven Application Lifecycle” Bob Sherman Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals [email protected] Michael Sutherland Galactic Solutions Group, LLC [email protected] Prepared for the Telelogic 2005 User Group Conference, Americas & Asia/Pacific http://www.telelogic.com/news/usergroup/us2005/index.cfm 24 October 2005 Abstract: The fact that most Information Technology (IT) projects fail as a result of requirements management problems is common knowledge. What is not commonly recognized is that the widely haled “use case” and Object Oriented Analysis and Design (OOAD) phenomenon have resulted in little (if any) abatement of IT project failures. In fact, ten years after the advent of these methods, every major IT industry research group remains aligned on the fact that these projects are still failing at an alarming rate (less than a 30% success rate). Ironically, the popularity of use case and OOAD (e.g. UML) methods may be doing more harm than good by diverting our attention away from addressing the real root cause of IT project failures (when you have a new hammer, everything looks like a nail). This paper asserts that, the real root cause of IT project failures centers around the failure to map requirements to an accurate, precise, comprehensive, optimized business model. This argument will be supported by a using a brief recap of the history of use case and OOAD methods to identify differences between the problems these methods were intended to address and the challenges of today’s IT projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Previous Work Relating to Campam Themes
    3rd CAMPaM Workshop 2006 Previous Work Relating to CAMPaM Themes Thomas Kuh¨ ne Darmstadt University of Technology, Darmstadt, Germany e-mail: [email protected] 1 Interests zation” and how deep instantiation provides a nice solution, in particular in comparison to powertypes [12]. The following describes a certain subset of my research in- terests only. I have left out anything that has not immediate connection to the central CAMPaM themes. 1.4 Stereotypes I general, I’m interested in looking at the fundamentals of approaches that have a practical application. For instance, In joint work with Colin Atkinson and Brian Henderson-Sellers I do think the main thrust of the model-driven development I have criticized a common unofficial use of stereotypes and idea is heading in the right direction, but here and there a few argued for the need to better support modelers in specify- basics should be sorted out before the whole thing may fly. ing properties for classes, objects, and a combination of the Here are the areas related to CAMPaM themes in which I two [9]. have been making contributions. 1.5 Profiles 1.1 Metamodeling Fundamentals Together with Colin Atkinson I have tried to clarify when and Colin Atkinson and I have suggested a more comprehensive when not to use metamodeling [8], figured out how parallel interpretation of profiles [3]. descriptions hierarchies may be aligned [2], and distinguis- hed two important dimensions of metamodeling (linguistic vs ontological) [6,5]. 1.6 Architecture Stratification In work yet to be published I have distinguished between two kinds of model roles (token vs type models) and forma- Relating to the “multi abstractions” CAMPaM theme, I have lized what “metamodeling” could mean, including a clarifi- recently developed a prototype for handling multiple descrip- cation whether or not it is reasonable to refer to abstract syn- tions of the same system at different abstraction levels [11].
    [Show full text]
  • On the Analysis of Cmmn Expressiveness: Revisiting Workflow Patterns
    ' $ ON THE ANALYSIS OF CMMN EXPRESSIVENESS: REVISITING WORKFLOW PATTERNS Renata Carvalho 1, Anis Boubaker 1, Javier Gonzalez-Huerta 1, Hafedh Mili 1, Simon Ringuette 2, and Yasmine Charif 3 Mars 2016 D´epartement d'informatique Universit´edu Qu´ebec `aMontr´eal Rapport de recherche Latece 2016-1 & % ON THE ANALYSIS OF CMMN EXPRESSIVENESS: REVISITING WORKFLOW PATTERNS Renata Carvalho 1, Anis Boubaker 1, Javier Gonzalez- Huerta 1, Hafedh Mili 1, Simon Ringuette 2, and Yasmine Charif 3 1 D´epartement d'informatique UQAM Montr´eal,Qc, Canada 2 Trisotech Inc. Montr´eal,Qc, Canada 3 Xerox Innovation Group Xerox Research Center Webster Mailstop 128-29E Laboratoire de recherche sur les technologies du commerce ´electronique D´epartement d'informatique Universit´edu Qu´ebec `aMontr´eal C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville Montr´eal,QC, Canada H3C 3P8 http://www.latece.uqam.ca Mars 2016 Rapport de recherche Latece 2016-1 Summary Traditional business process modeling languages use an imperative style to specify all possible execution flows, leaving little flexibility to process operators. Such lan- guages are appropriate for low-complexity, high-volume, mostly automated processes. However, they are inadequate for case management, which involves low-volume, high- complexity, knowledge-intensive work processes of today's knowledge workers. OMG's Case Management Model and Notation(CMMN), which uses a declarative stytle to specify constraints placed at a process execution, aims at addressing this need. To the extent that typical case management situations do include at least some measure of imperative control, it is legitimate to ask whether an analyst working exclusively in CMMN can comfortably model the range of behaviors s/he is likely to encounter.
    [Show full text]