Visualizing model mappings in UML

ABSTRACT

Whenever multiple representations or models of a system exist, there is the possibility of defining how they relate. In model driven software development, it is essential that these mappings are defined precisely and automated as far as possible: they form the basis for generation of code and other models from a model, for reconciliation and management of consistency between models, and even for the definition of modeling languages themselves. A standard way of defining software modeling languages is metamodeling, which involves the construction of an object model of the syntax and, optionally, semantics of the language, using the diagrammatic syntax of the Unified Modeling Language (UML). This paper proposes an extension to UML for expressing mappings between models using diagrams, and illustrates how the extension can be used in metamodeling. The extension is inspired by mathematical relations and corrects a deficiency in the concept of association in class diagrams. The notation of object diagrams is also extended to allow particular instances of a relation to be presented.

REFERENCES

• 1: D. H. Akehurst , Stuart Kent, A Relational Approach to Defining Transformations in a Metamodel, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language, p.243-258, September 30-October 04, 2002
• 2: ALTHEIDE, F., DÖRR, H., AND SCHÜRR, A. 2002. Requirements to a framework for sustainable integration of system development tools. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Systems Engineering Conference Systems Engineering EuSEC 2002.
• 3: Phillip A. Bernstein , Alon Y. Halevy , Rachel A. Pottinger, A vision for management of complex models, ACM SIGMOD Record, v.29 n.4, p.55-63, Dec. 2000 [doi>10.1145/369275.369289]
• 4: BOLDSOFTET AL, 2002. Response to the UML 2.0 OCL RfP, version 1.5.
• 5: Paolo Bottoni , Manuel Koch , Francesco Parisi-Presicce , Gabriele Taentzer, A Visualization of OCL Using Collaborations, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language, Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools, p.257-271, October 01-05, 2001
• 6: BROOKS, R. 1983. Towards a theory of the comprehension of computer programs. Int. J. Man-Machine Studies 18, 543--554.
• 7: Kajal T. Claypool , Elke A. Rundensteiner , Xin Zhang , Su Hong , Harumi Kuno , Wang-chien Lee , Gail Mitchell, Sangam - a solution to support multiple data models, their mappings and maintenance, ACM SIGMOD Record, v.30 n.2, p.606, June 2001
• 8: Gregor Engels , Reiko Heckel , Jochen Malte Küster , Luuk Groenewegen, Consistency-Preserving Model Evolution through Transformations, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language, p.212-226, September 30-October 04, 2002
• 9: GRUNDY, J., AND HOSKING, J., 1996. Constructing integrated software development environments with MViews. International Journal of Applied Software Technology, vol. 2, no. 3--4, 1996.
• 10: D. Harel , B. Rumpe, Modeling Languages: Syntax, Semantics and All That Stuff, Part I: The Basic Stuff, Weizmann Science Press of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel, 2000
• 11: HAUSMANN, J. H., HECKEL, R., AND SAUER, S. 2002. Extended model relations with graphical consistency conditions. In Blekinge Institute of Technology, Research Report 2002:06. UML 2002, Model Engineering, Concepts and Tools. Workshop on Consistency Problems in UML-based Software Development. Workshop Materials, Department of Software Engineering and Computer Science, Blekinge Institute of Technology, L. Kuzniarz, G. Reggio, J. L. Sourrouille, and Z. Huzar, Eds., 61--74.
• 12: Stuart Kent, Constraint diagrams: visualizing invariants in object-oriented models, Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, p.327-341, October 05-09, 1997, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
• 13: The Kent Modeling Framework. www.cs.ukc.ac.uk/kmf.
• 14: MANSUROV, N., AND RAGOZIN, A. 1999. Using declarative mappings for automatic code generation from SDL and ASN In Proceedings of the 9th SDL Forum, Elsevier.
• 15: Gail C. Murphy , David Notkin , Kevin Sullivan, Software reflexion models: bridging the gap between source and high-level models, Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering, p.18-28, October 12-15, 1995, Washington, D.C., United States
• 16: Jörg Niere , Wilhelm Schäfer , Jörg P. Wadsack , Lothar Wendehals , Jim Welsh, Towards pattern-based design recovery, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 19-25, 2002, Orlando, Florida [doi>10.1145/581339.581382]
• 17: OBJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP, 2001. Model Driven Architecture.
• 18: OBJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP, 2001. UML specification version 1.4. http://www.celigent.com/omg/umlrtf/.
• 19: OBJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP, 2002. Meta Object Facility (MOF) specification, version 1.4.
• 20: OBJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP, 2002. MOF 2.0 Query / Views / Transformations RfP.
• 21: OBJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP, 2002. UML profile for enterprise distributed object computing (EDOC).
• 22: PREISS, O., AND WEGMANN, A. 2002. Strengthening MDA by drawing from the Living Systems Theory. In Proceedings of UML2002 Workshop in Software Model Engineering (WiSME@UML2002).
• 23: Andy Schürr, Specification of Graph Translators with Triple Graph Grammars, Proceedings of the 20th International Workshop on Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, p.151-163, June 16-18, 1994
• 24: STEVENS, P. 2002. On the interpretation of binary associations in the Unified Modelling Language. Journal of Software and Systems Modeling Vol. 1 Issue 2, 2002