A UML 2 Profile for Variability Models and their Dependency to Business Processes

Abstract

Variability Models are designed for modelling variabilities of a software. Unfortunately they are not part of a wellknown modelling framework for a higher usability, like the Unified Modelling Language. To address this limitation, we provide a UML 2 profile for variability models. Furthermore we show the dependency from the UML profile to activity diagrams to make the relationship between variability models and process models visible. This profile and its mapping are tested with example business processes.

End to End Development Engineering

“…The same extension is found in the literature such as [2,3,12] but there are two problems with this. Firstly, it does not model mapping variability and for example the conflict cases that arise when we link NFRs with variants.…”

“…It is intended to link a PSM variant with the relevant NFR(s). The traditional mechanism in literature used to model variability is through a subclass structure of the UML class model like [12]. This is suitable for humans but if the system is scaled up, it would be difficult for a human to comprehend that system.…”

“…Since standard UML does not have a variability concept, modeling variability in a PSM we need to use a profile to allow us to specify the variability ontology. A profile is a special domain language used as an extension mechanism to UML model elements while keeping their syntax and semantic intact.Proposed metamodels and profiles in the literature such as [2,12]can allow an architect to identify specific variation points, constraints and dependencies that indicate different relationships between variation points (VP) and variants (V), VP and VP, etc.…”

“…Still there is a research gap in these areas on how to map nonfunctional requirements with design decisions systematically. The problem has been looked at from one dimension, for example SPL has concerned only with variability without considering NFR such as [2,3,11,12] while design pattern has recognized the impact of NFR dimension without variability in an explicit way [13][14][15].…”

An Interactive Method for Validating Stage Configuration

“…Clauss [27] suggested Object Constraint Language (OCL) to satisfy constraint dependency rules. Korherr and List [28] proposed a UML 2 profile to model variability. Korherr's model used OCL to satisfy the three levels constraint dependency rules.…”