DOCSLIB.ORG

UML 2001: a Standardization Odyssey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. It assumes modate a diverse range of technical and business the reader is generally familiar with the use of UML, requirements. From a business perspective, the and instead focuses on the language’s recent and COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM October 1999/Vol. 42, No. 10 29 future evolution. The processes and architectures Figure 1. The origin and descent of UML. for UML change manage- ment are examined, followed 2001? «document» by discussion of how these (planned major revision) UML 2.0 processes and architectures were used in the recent «refine» minor revision of the lan- guage (UML 1.3), and how 2000? «document» they may be applied in the (planned minor revision) UML 1.4 next major revision (UML 2.0), which is tentatively «refine» scheduled to be completed in «document» 2001. Factors contributing to 1999 the success of the UML will UML 1.3 be assessed here, followed by speculation on its future. «refine» Pre-Standardization 1998 «document» History UML 1.2 The UML started out as a collaboration among three «refine» outstanding methodologists September 1997 «document» who are collectively referred (final submission UML 1.1 to as “the Amigos”: Grady to OMG) Booch, Ivar Jacobson, and James Rumbaugh. At first «refine» Editorial revision with no significant Booch and Rumbaugh technical changes. January 1997 sought to unify their meth- «document» (initial submission UML 1.0 ods with the Unified to OMG) Method v. 0.8 in 1995; a year later Jacobson joined «refine» refinement dependency them to collaborate on the 1996 «document» slightly less ambitious task UML 0.9 of unifying their modeling languages with UML 0.9 [1, 2]. The UML static struc- «refine» ture diagram in Figure 1 «document» shows these early specifica- 1995 Unified Method document stereotype tions and their descendents 0.8 in historical perspective. The UML reaped the benefits and assumed the responsibilities of its privi- modeling experts assumed the responsibility to make leged birth. Users quickly recognized the advantages of the language a formal standard as well. The “UML a common modeling language that could be used to Partners,” representing a diverse mix of vendors and visualize, specify, construct and document the artifacts system integrators, began working with the Amigos of a software system. They enthusiastically applied in 1996 to propose UML as the standard modeling early drafts of the language to diverse domains ranging language for the OMG. The Partners organized from finance and health to telecommunications and themselves into a software development team that aerospace. Driven by strong user demand, the model- followed a disciplined process. Since the process was ing tool vendors soon included UML support in their based on an iterative and incremental development products. life cycle, the team produced frequent “builds” and At the same time that UML was becoming a de draft releases of the specification, just as one would facto industry standard, an international team of do when developing a commercial product. 30 October 1999/Vol. 42, No. 10 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM Figure 2. Activity diagram showing OMG processes. • Incomplete semantics and notation for activity graphs. Activity graph semantics, which were added relatively later in the swimlane process, were not fully integrated with Submission TeamTask Force Revision Task Force the state machine semantics on which start activity activity control flow they depended. In addition, some nota- Begin tion conveniences required by business fork of control modelers were missing. Develop technology Issue RFP specification • Standard elements bloat. The language RFP specification included many standard ele- [issued] conditional thread join of control ments (stereotypes, tagged values, and constraints) that were hastily added to Submit specification draft object flow address the requirements of various com- Specification peting methods groups. Many of these [optional] [initial input value proposal] Collaborate w standard elements had sparse semantics competitive submitters and were inconsistently named and Evaluate initial submissions organized. join and fork of control Finalize • Architectural misalignment. The submitters specification Specification fell short of their goal of implementing a [final proposal] 4-layer metamodel architecture using a Evaluate final 1 submissions strict metamodeling approach. Instead they settled for the pragmatic, but less rig- Vote to recommend orous, loose (non-strict) metamodeling guard approach. This adversely affected the inte- Specification [if YES] [if NO] [adopted] branch gration of UML with other OMG model- ing standards, such as the Meta Object Revise Implement specification Facility (MOF) [5]. specification Specification [revised] Enhance specification Recommend Rather than delay the standardization of revision UML, the submitters resolved to address some of these problems in the next revision of else [if Enhanced] end activity the language. Processes for Evolution To better understand the process for UML evolution, it will be helpful to examine the The Partners focused on improving the language’s generic mechanisms that the OMG provides for stan- architecture and formalism, and ensuring that it was fully dards revisions: Request for Proposals (RFPs) and general purpose (i.e., that it met the demands of other Revision Task Forces (RTFs) [6]. The manner in mainstream methods in addition to those of the Ami- which the RFP process complements the RTF and gos). They also defined a facility for interchanging UML submission processes is shown in a UML activity dia- models between tools and an optional language for con- gram in Figure 2. In this diagram the submission, straints. The Partners tendered their initial UML pro- RFP and RTF processes are partitioned into vertical posal to the OMG (UML 1.0) in January 1997 [7]. After “swimlanes” labeled for the stakeholders who drive nine months of intensive improvements to the specifica- each process (Submission Team, Task Force, and Revi- tion they submitted their final proposal (UML 1.1) in sion Task Force, respectively). Activities are shown by September 1997, which the OMG officially adopted as shapes with straight tops and bottoms, and with convex its object modeling standard in November 1997 [8]. arcs on the side; object flows that are inputs to or out- It is important to note that the UML suffered some puts by an activity are shown by rectangles. undesirable side effects from its relatively fast ride The RFP process is the OMG’s primary mechanism through the OMG submission process. Although the for adopting new specifications and enhancing existing infrastructure and most of the superstructure of the lan- 1 guage were sound, several significant problems were In strict metamodeling, every element of a Mn level model is an instance of exactly one element of a Mn+1 level model. In loose metamodeling a Mn level model is an instance known at the time of the final submission: of a Mn+1 level model. COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM October 1999/Vol. 42, No. 10 31 specifications. As the left and middle swimlanes show, that couldn’t be resolved quickly were delegated to spe- a Task Force issues an RFP that one or more Submis- cialized workgroups (for example, the Structural Work- sion Teams respond to with draft specifications referred group for issues related to static structural modeling) to as initial proposals. The Task Force then evaluates for further action. the initial proposals and provides feedback to the sub- Between Technical Committee meetings the work- mitters, who are encouraged to collaborate with com- groups functioned as virtual teams that recommended petitors before completing their final proposals. After corrections and clarifications to the issues assigned
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]
  • Customizing UML with Stereotypes
    Customizing UML with Stereotypes Mirosáaw StaroĔ ii iii Blekinge Institute of Technology Dissertation Series No 2003:06 ISSN 1650-2140 ISBN 91-7295-028-5 Customizing UML with Stereotypes Mirosáaw StaroĔ Department of Software Engineering and Computer Science Blekinge Institute of Technology Sweden iv BLEKINGE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Blekinge Institute of Technology, situated on the southeast coast of Sweden, started in 1989 and in 1999 gained the right to run Ph.D programmes in technology. Research programmes have been started in the following areas: • Applied signal processing • Computer science • Computer systems technology • Design and digital media • Human work science with a special focus on IT • IT and gender research • Mechanical engineering • Software engineering • Spatial planning • Telecommunication systems Research studies are carried out in all faculties and about a third of the annual budget is dedicated to research. Blekinge Institute of Technology S-371 79 Karlskrona, Sweden http://www.bth.se v Jacket illustration: © 2003 GillWorth gallery, www.gillworthreptiles.co.uk Publisher: Blekinge Institute of Technology Printed by Kaserntryckeriet, Karlskrona, Sweden 2003 ISBN 91-7295-028-5 vi Abstract The Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a visual modeling language for documenting and specifying software. It is gaining popularity as a language for a variety of purposes. It was designed as a result of a unifying activity in the last decade. Since this general purpose language cannot suit all possible needs, it has built-in mechanisms for providing extensibility for specific purposes. One such mechanism is the notion of stereotype, which is a means of branding the existing model element with a new semantics.
    [Show full text]
  • OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG Sysml™) Tutorial 25 June 2007
    OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML™) Tutorial 25 June 2007 Sanford Friedenthal Alan Moore Rick Steiner (emails included in references at end) Copyright © 2006, 2007 by Object Management Group. Published and used by INCOSE and affiliated societies with permission. Status • Specification status – Adopted by OMG in May ’06 – Finalization Task Force Report in March ’07 – Available Specification v1.0 expected June ‘07 – Revision task force chartered for SysML v1.1 in March ‘07 • This tutorial is based on the OMG SysML adopted specification (ad-06-03-01) and changes proposed by the Finalization Task Force (ptc/07-03-03) • This tutorial, the specifications, papers, and vendor info can be found on the OMG SysML Website at http://www.omgsysml.org/ 7/26/2007 Copyright © 2006,2007 by Object Management Group. 2 Objectives & Intended Audience At the end of this tutorial, you should have an awareness of: • Benefits of model driven approaches for systems engineering • SysML diagrams and language concepts • How to apply SysML as part of a model based SE process • Basic considerations for transitioning to SysML This course is not intended to make you a systems modeler! You must use the language. Intended Audience: • Practicing Systems Engineers interested in system modeling • Software Engineers who want to better understand how to integrate software and system models • Familiarity with UML is not required, but it helps 7/26/2007 Copyright © 2006,2007 by Object Management Group. 3 Topics • Motivation & Background • Diagram Overview and Language Concepts • SysML Modeling as Part of SE Process – Structured Analysis – Distiller Example – OOSEM – Enhanced Security System Example • SysML in a Standards Framework • Transitioning to SysML • Summary 7/26/2007 Copyright © 2006,2007 by Object Management Group.
    [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]
  • A Model-Driven Engineering Approach to Support the Verification of Compliance to Safety Standards
    A Model-Driven Engineering Approach to Support the Verification of Compliance to Safety Standards Rajwinder Kaur Panesar-Walawege, Mehrdad Sabetzadeh, Lionel Briand Simula Research Laboratory, Lysaker, Norway University of Oslo, Norway Email: {rpanesar,mehrdad,briand}@simula.no Abstract—Certification of safety-critical systems according to system development. This means that they will have to well-recognised standards is the norm in many industries where reconstruct the missing evidence after the fact. Doing so the failure of such systems can harm people or the environment. is often very expensive, and the outcomes might be far Certification bodies examine such systems, based on evidence that the system suppliers provide, to ensure that the relevant from satisfactory. On the certifier side, poorly structured and safety risks have been sufficiently mitigated. The evidence is incomplete evidence often leads to significant delays and aimed at satisfying the requirements of the standards used loss of productivity, and further may not allow the certifier for certification, and naturally a key prerequisite for effective to develop enough trust in the system that needs to be collection of evidence is that the supplier be aware of these certified. It is therefore very important to devise a systematic requirements and the evidence they require. This often proves to be a very challenging task because of the sheer size of the methodology, which is amenable to effective automated standards and the fact that the textual standards are amenable support, to specify, manage, and analyze the safety evidence to subjective interpretation. In this paper, we propose an ap- used to demonstrate compliance to standards.
    [Show full text]
  • UML Notation Guide 3
    UML Notation Guide 3 This guide describes the notation for the visual representation of the Unified Modeling Language (UML). This notation document contains brief summaries of the semantics of UML constructs, but the UML Semantics chapter must be consulted for full details. Contents This chapter contains the following topics. Topic Page “Part 1 - Background” “Introduction” 3-5 Part 2 - Diagram Elements “Graphs and Their Contents” 3-6 “Drawing Paths” 3-7 “Invisible Hyperlinks and the Role of Tools” 3-7 “Background Information” 3-8 “String” 3-8 “Name” 3-9 “Label” 3-10 “Keywords” 3-11 “Expression” 3-11 “Type-Instance Correspondence” 3-14 Part 3 - Model Management March 2003 OMG-Unified Modeling Language, v1.5 3-1 3 UML Notation Guide Topic Page “Package” 3-16 “Subsystem” 3-19 “Model” 3-24 Part 4 - General Extension Mechanisms “Constraint and Comment” 3-26 “Element Properties” 3-29 “Stereotypes” 3-31 Part 5 - Static Structure Diagrams “Class Diagram” 3-34 “Object Diagram” 3-35 “Classifier” 3-35 “Class” 3-35 “Name Compartment” 3-38 “List Compartment” 3-38 “Attribute” 3-41 “Operation” 3-44 “Nested Class Declarations” 3-48 “Type and Implementation Class” 3-49 “Interfaces” 3-50 “Parameterized Class (Template)” 3-52 “Bound Element” 3-54 “Utility” 3-56 “Metaclass” 3-57 “Enumeration” 3-57 “Stereotype Declaration” 3-57 “Powertype” 3-61 “Class Pathnames” 3-61 “Accessing or Importing a Package” 3-62 “Object” 3-64 “Composite Object” 3-67 “Association” 3-68 “Binary Association” 3-68 3-2 OMG-Unified Modeling Language, v1.5 March 2003 3 UML Notation Guide
    [Show full text]
  • Plantuml Language Reference Guide (Version 1.2021.2)
    Drawing UML with PlantUML PlantUML Language Reference Guide (Version 1.2021.2) PlantUML is a component that allows to quickly write : • Sequence diagram • Usecase diagram • Class diagram • Object diagram • Activity diagram • Component diagram • Deployment diagram • State diagram • Timing diagram The following non-UML diagrams are also supported: • JSON Data • YAML Data • Network diagram (nwdiag) • Wireframe graphical interface • Archimate diagram • Specification and Description Language (SDL) • Ditaa diagram • Gantt diagram • MindMap diagram • Work Breakdown Structure diagram • Mathematic with AsciiMath or JLaTeXMath notation • Entity Relationship diagram Diagrams are defined using a simple and intuitive language. 1 SEQUENCE DIAGRAM 1 Sequence Diagram 1.1 Basic examples The sequence -> is used to draw a message between two participants. Participants do not have to be explicitly declared. To have a dotted arrow, you use --> It is also possible to use <- and <--. That does not change the drawing, but may improve readability. Note that this is only true for sequence diagrams, rules are different for the other diagrams. @startuml Alice -> Bob: Authentication Request Bob --> Alice: Authentication Response Alice -> Bob: Another authentication Request Alice <-- Bob: Another authentication Response @enduml 1.2 Declaring participant If the keyword participant is used to declare a participant, more control on that participant is possible. The order of declaration will be the (default) order of display. Using these other keywords to declare participants
    [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]
  • Plantuml Language Reference Guide
    Drawing UML with PlantUML Language Reference Guide (Version 5737) PlantUML is an Open Source project that allows to quickly write: • Sequence diagram, • Usecase diagram, • Class diagram, • Activity diagram, • Component diagram, • State diagram, • Object diagram. Diagrams are defined using a simple and intuitive language. 1 SEQUENCE DIAGRAM 1 Sequence Diagram 1.1 Basic examples Every UML description must start by @startuml and must finish by @enduml. The sequence ”->” is used to draw a message between two participants. Participants do not have to be explicitly declared. To have a dotted arrow, you use ”-->”. It is also possible to use ”<-” and ”<--”. That does not change the drawing, but may improve readability. Example: @startuml Alice -> Bob: Authentication Request Bob --> Alice: Authentication Response Alice -> Bob: Another authentication Request Alice <-- Bob: another authentication Response @enduml To use asynchronous message, you can use ”->>” or ”<<-”. @startuml Alice -> Bob: synchronous call Alice ->> Bob: asynchronous call @enduml PlantUML : Language Reference Guide, December 11, 2010 (Version 5737) 1 of 96 1.2 Declaring participant 1 SEQUENCE DIAGRAM 1.2 Declaring participant It is possible to change participant order using the participant keyword. It is also possible to use the actor keyword to use a stickman instead of a box for the participant. You can rename a participant using the as keyword. You can also change the background color of actor or participant, using html code or color name. Everything that starts with simple quote ' is a comment. @startuml actor Bob #red ' The only difference between actor and participant is the drawing participant Alice participant "I have a really\nlong name" as L #99FF99 Alice->Bob: Authentication Request Bob->Alice: Authentication Response Bob->L: Log transaction @enduml PlantUML : Language Reference Guide, December 11, 2010 (Version 5737) 2 of 96 1.3 Use non-letters in participants 1 SEQUENCE DIAGRAM 1.3 Use non-letters in participants You can use quotes to define participants.
    [Show full text]
  • On UML's Composite Structure Diagram
    On UML's Composite Structure Diagram Ian Oliver, Vesa Luukkala Nokia Research Center Helsinki, Finland fian.oliver,[email protected] Abstract. The composite structure diagram and related notions have been introduced into UML2.0 to supplement already existing artifacts such as classes. However the usage of these constructs by engineers and/or modellers is not always in the spirit of inventors of these con- structs. A number of additional interpretations develop which are not always consistent with the intended usage of the structure nor with the language itself. Understanding these additional usages assists in under- standing areas of ambiguity, extension, inconsistency and the future de- velopment of the language. 1 Introduction The composite structure diagram's and related structures' uses and semantics are well described in [1{3] while the notions of composition are adequately de- scribed in [4, 5]. Its function is to extend the modelling capabilities of the UML beyond that of classes and their relationships and is primarily aimed to assist the modelling of the internal structures of classes with a more well defined notion of decomposition. Similar notions exist in methods such as ROOM [6] (capsules) and languages such as SDL [7] and SysML [8] for example. As tools become more UML compliant and support more UML constructs, en- gineers and/or modellers start to use these additional constructs. The effect of this is that the semantics of these constructs is often learnt through an implicit process based around the name of the construct and what the tool appears to allow; the semantics are often based on the engineer's expectations and per- ceived meaning [9] rather than on the actual, intended semantics.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantitative Safety Analysis of UML Models
    University of Konstanz Department of Computer and Information Science Master Thesis for the degree Master of Science (M.Sc.) in Information Engineering Quantitative Safety Analysis of UML Models by Florian Leitner-Fischer (Matr.-Nr. 01 / 612538) 1st Referee: Prof. Dr. Stefan Leue 2nd Referee: Prof. Dr. Marc H. Scholl Konstanz, August 2, 2010 2 3 Abstract When developing a safety-critical system it is essential to obtain an assessment of different design alternatives. In particular, an early safety assessment of the architectural design of a system is desirable. In spite of the plethora of available formal quantitative analysis methods it is still difficult for software and system architects to integrate these techniques into their every day work. This is mainly due to the lack of methods that can be directly applied to architecture level models, for instance given as UML diagrams. Another obstacle is, that the methods often require a profound knowledge of formal methods, which can rarely be found in industrial practice. Our approach bridges this gap and improves the integration of quantitative safety analysis methods into the development process. We propose a UML profile that allows for the specification of all inputs needed for the analysis at the level of a UML model. The QuantUM tool which we have developed, automatically translates an UML model into an analysis model. Furthermore, the results gained from the analysis are lifted to the level of the UML specification or other high-level formalism to further facilitate the process. Thus the analysis model and the formal methods used during the analysis are hidden from the user.
    [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]