Defining Patterns Using UML Profiles

Debnath, Narayan C.; Garis, Ana Gabriela; Riesco, Daniel Eduardo; Montejano, Germán Antonio

doi:10.1109/aiccsa.2006.205233

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The works in [20][21][22] show the versatility of profiles to define different environments (application domains), which extend the UML specification (not only the syntax but also the semantic through formal OCL constraints). In particular, the work in [20] shows the way for defining design patterns with profile, proposing architecture in levels. It shows how the definition of a profile for a particular pattern, and how an UML tool can be enough to introduce profile for patterns.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

UML Profile for Mining Process: Supporting Modeling and Simulation Based on Metamodels of Activity Diagram

Giubergia

Riesco

Gil-Costa

et al. 2014

Modelling and Simulation in Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An UML profile describes lightweight extension mechanism to the UML by defining custom stereotypes, tagged values, and constraints. They are used to adapt UML metamodel to different platforms and domains. In this paper we present an UML profile for models supporting event driving simulation. In particular, we use the Arena simulation tool and we focus on the mining process domain. Profiles provide an easy way to obtain well-defined specifications, regulated by the Object Management Group (OMG). They can be used as a presimulation technique to obtain solid models for the mining industry. In this work we present a new profile to extend the UML metamodel; in particular we focus on the activity diagram. This extended model is applied to an industry problem involving loading and transportation of minerals in the field of mining process.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

UML Profile for Mining Process: Supporting Modeling and Simulation Based on Metamodels of Activity Diagram

Giubergia

Riesco

Gil-Costa

et al. 2014

Modelling and Simulation in Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this regard, our approach is not much different from metamodel-based representations of design patterns, including Refs. [10,11,[13][14][15][16]]. Our solution model contains a class hierarchy corresponding to operations (Visitors hierarchy) and a class hierarchy corresponding to the elements (Element hierarchy) on which the operations are executed.…”

Section: Representing the Solutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Approaches in the first category provide an explicit representation of design patterns. Most of these approaches adopt what might be called a top-down strategy [47] to using design patterns whereby the designer first selects a design pattern to instantiate, then specifies the instantiation parameters (e.g., application-specific class names) that are used by a Computer-aided software engineering (CASE) tool to generate the instance of the pattern, as in [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. By contrast, the bottom-up strategy consists of identifying perfect instances (hits) or imperfect ones (near hits) of specific design patterns, as in [10,20,48].…”

Section: Representing Design Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, existing work has, for the most part, focused on a subset of these tasks. Indeed, depending on their goals, the approaches that we have studied have focused on either representing structures of the solutions proposed by design patterns (e.g., [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]), either representing the transformation embodied in pattern's application (e.g., [21][22][23]). The task of finding opportunities for applying patterns in existing models has not been tackled by these approaches, which are further discussed in the related work section.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding design patterns — what is the problem?

Boussaidi

Mili

2011

Softw Pract Exp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Design patterns codify proven solutions to recurring design problems. Their proper use within a development context requires that: (i) we understand them; (ii) we ascertain their applicability or relevance to the design problem at hand; and (iii) we apply them faithfully to the problem at hand. We argue that an explicit representation of the design problem solved by a design pattern is key to supporting the three tasks in an integrated fashion. We propose a model‐driven representation of design patterns consisting of triples < MP, MS, T > where MP is a model of the problem solved by the pattern, MS is a model of the solution proposed by the pattern, and T is a model transformation of an instance of the problem into an instance of the solution. Given an object‐oriented design model, we look for model fragments that match MP (call them instances of MP), and when one is found, we apply the transformation T yielding an instance of MS. Easier said than done. Experimentation with an Eclipse Modeling Framework‐based implementation of our approach applied to a number of open‐source software application's raised fundamental questions about: (i) the nature of design patterns in general, and the ones that lend themselves to our approach, and (ii) our understanding and codification of seemingly simple design patterns. In this paper, we present the principles behind our approach, report on the results of applying the approach to the Gang of Four (GoF) design patterns, and discuss the representability of design problems solved by these patterns. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…Dong and Yang used UML profile to visualize design patterns . An architecture structured in levels for defining design patterns was proposed in .…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

UML design pattern metamodel‐level constraints for the maintenance of software evolution

Park

Lee²,

Rine

2011

Softw Pract Exp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software maintenance including design is difficult because it is usually performed on someone else's work over a period of time. Maintaining a pattern-based design is especially much more difficult when the information on specific patterns that have been used are not available in the corresponding design documents. Also, finding a maintainer who has a similar level of knowledge on specific patterns that the initial designer had is not easy. Pattern-based design, the use of design patterns during the software design process, has become widely used in the object-oriented community because of its many benefits such as its reuse. However, the defects in pattern-based design can be introduced during the design maintenance phase when the changes are made to the requirements and the initial design, but the conformance to the original patterns is neglected. This conformance process is laborious and time consuming; no systematic process exists to guide the defects discovery and maintenance. Also, deep and correct knowledge of design patterns and their characteristics are required because this process is conducted by human experts. Failure to follow this conformance process and to maintain correct designs during software design evolution may cause serious problems in later software development and maintenance stages by not providing the benefits of patternbased design that would have been possible if followed correctly. There is a strong need of a systematic design and maintenance method for preventing defects in design patterns introduced during the evolution of pattern-based software design and its maintenance. Because conventional UML design methods do not provide such systematic ways of assessing pattern-based design conformance to the evolutionary changes, we have developed the pattern instance changes with UML profiles (PICUP) design method, which is an improved design method for perfective and corrective UML pattern-based design maintenance and assessment. Design pattern in UML profiles (DPUP) is developed for the use of instantiation, maintenance, and assessment of UML pattern-based designs to support the formal specification of a design pattern. DPUPs, as the main part of the PICUP design method, provide metamodel-level UML design constraints using UML stereotype notations and metamodel-level Object Constraint Language design constraints. Assessment of pattern-based designs in UML class diagram with the corresponding DPUPs enforces maintainers to make necessary and correct changes to keep the principles of the original designs. Pattern-related information is annotated using stereotype notations to help assess pattern-based designs when changes are made. Furthermore, the structural conformance checking of a given UML pattern-based design can be automated by using the assessment tool. The major contributions of this paper are: (i) specifying design patterns using extended UML profile; (ii) providing a means of how to instantiate pattern-based designs from DPUPs with naming conventions; and (iii) providing design con...

show abstract

Defining Patterns Using UML Profiles

Cited by 11 publications

References 6 publications

UML Profile for Mining Process: Supporting Modeling and Simulation Based on Metamodels of Activity Diagram

UML Profile for Mining Process: Supporting Modeling and Simulation Based on Metamodels of Activity Diagram

Understanding design patterns — what is the problem?

UML design pattern metamodel‐level constraints for the maintenance of software evolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About