UML models consistency management: Guidelines for software quality manager

Bashir, Raja Sehrab; Lee, Sai Peck; Khan, Saif Ur Rehman; Chang, Victor; Farid, Shahid

doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.05.024

Cited by 42 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Structural and behavioural views are the most common examples of system views in the field of software engineering. One of the main concern of the multiple-view approach is enforcing and maintaining the consistency across the different views [35]- [37]. Figure 5, above, demonstrates the sub-categories of this feature.…”

Section: Fig 6 the Features Of Viewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Framework for Classifying Information Systems Modelling Languages

Subahi¹,

Alotaibi²

2018

JSW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The comparative survey shows that there are many Domain Specific Languages (DSMLs) adopted in various Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) approaches for information systems engineering. Choosing the appropriate DSML depends on the type of the target information system (IS), as well as the technical and modelling skills of the developing team. Adopting the right DSML is considered a difficult issue for casual designers, domain experts with limited modelling skills. Therefore, introducing a simplified DSML that describes IS in a higher-level of abstraction way than existing DSML approaches supports business users to contribute more in the development process. In this work, a classification framework is introduced to categorise thirteen DSMLs, based on the target type of IS, into four major categories, namely, (1) DSMLs for n-tier web application development, (2) DSMLs for cloud-based applications development, (3) DSMLs for mobile-based applications development and (4) DSMLs for tier-specific enterprise applications development. Feature modelling technique was adopted to compare and categorise modelling languages. Sharing a common similarity are clustered together into higher-level categories in the hierarchy as the main characteristics from different modelling languages. At the end, the resulting framework is documented using a multiple-level feature diagram to support domain expert decisions of choosing a DSML that suits their needs; And provide common DSML features to be adopted in constructing a simplified DSML that supports Lightweight MDE development.

show abstract

Section: Fig 6 the Features Of Viewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Framework for Classifying Information Systems Modelling Languages

Subahi¹,

Alotaibi²

2018

JSW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2) Behavior types include use case diagrams, activity diagrams, state diagrams, sequence diagrams, communication diagrams, interaction overview diagrams, timing diagrams, etc. Since UML 2.0 is a multidiagram approach, there are always some inconsistencies between different diagrams in the user model [6]- [8]. Two obvious inconsistencies occur most often.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structure-Behavior Coalescence Abstract State Machine for Metamodel-Based Language in Model-Driven Engineering

Chao²

2021

IEEE Systems Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In model-driven engineering (MDE), the unified modeling language (UML) 2.0 metamodel solution includes a metamodel that defines the language concepts and a user model that defines how the language concepts are represented. In UML 2.0, an important usage of metamodel is to ensure model consistency between different diagrams in the user model. However, most existing UML metamodels lack an integrated semantic framework to project each diagram in the user model as a view of the metamodel. To overcome the shortcomings of the current UML 2.0 metamodel approaches, we developed structure-behavior coalescence abstract state machine (SBC-ASM) for metamodel-based language (MBL), which provides an integrated semantic framework that is able to integrate structural constructs with behavioral constructs. Using SBC-ASM MBL as the metamodel solution of UML 2.0, each diagram in the user model can be projected as a view of the SBC-ASM.

show abstract

“…A central question in multi-view modelling is whether such a family of UML/OCL diagrams and annotations is still consistent, i.e., conjointly instantiable such that all views from all viewpoints are satisfied w.r.t. their (well-defined) semantics [c46] 3 . This preferrable to represent the structural and behavioural semantics of a sub-language in an appropriate semantic domain of its own and only to relate these sub-languages and their semantic domains by translations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A structural verification task considers a single (integrated) system state only, whereas a behavioural task pertains to a sequence of states. In contrast to [c46], here "[c]onsistency problems are structural problems and do not involve behaviour" [18, p. 122].The large number of approaches to multi-view consistency in the literature has also been reviewed and summarised [3,20,28,40,41,42]. In particular, Torre et al [40,41] systematically survey existing consistency rules.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multi-view Consistency in UML: A Survey

Knapp

Mossakowski

2018

Graph Transformation, Specifications, and Nets

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study the question of consistency of multi-view models in UML and OCL. We first critically survey the large amount of literature that already exists. We find that only limited subsets of the UML/OCL have been covered so far and that consistency checks mostly only cover structural aspects, whereas only few methods also address behaviour. We also give a classification of different techniques for multi-view UML/OCL consistency: consistency rules, the system model approach, dynamic meta-modelling, universal logic, and heterogeneous transformation. Finally, we elaborate cornerstones of a comprehensive distributed semantics approach to consistency using OMG's Distributed Ontology, Model and Specification Language (DOL). consistency problem has already been stated in the early UML days [5,13,14], and has been addressed quite intensively in the literature. In particular, several categorisations for partitioning the consistency problem have been designed: Engels et al. [c26] suggest to distinguish between horizontal (or intra-model) and vertical (or inter-model) consistency, i.e., whether the views are on the same level of abstraction; as well as syntactic (structural well-formedness of the abstract syntax) and semantic consistency (compatibility of behaviour). Mens et al. [29] focus more on the intention of sub-languages and give a classification into structural vs. behavioral diagrams and their use on the specification vs. instance level. Allaki et al.[1] combine these schemes into a typological frame of monovs. multi-diagram, specification vs. instance, and syntactic vs. semantic, and furthermore add a taxonomy of consistency problems in a terminological dimension, mentioning incompleteness, ambiguity, contradiction, incompatibility, and anomaly. From a verification perspective, Hilken et al.[18] present a list of structural and behavioural verification tasks for UML models considering besides consistency the categories of consequence, independence, executability, and reachability. A structural verification task considers a single (integrated) system state only, whereas a behavioural task pertains to a sequence of states. In contrast to [c46], here "[c]onsistency problems are structural problems and do not involve behaviour" [18, p. 122].The large number of approaches to multi-view consistency in the literature has also been reviewed and summarised [3,20,28,40,41,42]. In particular, Torre et al. [40,41] systematically survey existing consistency rules. They find that most rules are syntactic (88.21% in [40] and 81.89% according to the more comprehensive [41]), and that most of the rules are related to class diagrams (71.58%), sequence diagrams (47.37%), and state machine diagrams (42.11%). Moreover, they deplore that "it appears that researchers tend to discuss very similar consistency rules, over and over again", and conclude that "much more work is needed to develop consistency rules for all 14 UML diagrams, in all dimensions of consistency (e.g., semantic and syntactic on the one hand, horizontal, vertical and e...

show abstract

UML models consistency management: Guidelines for software quality manager

Cited by 42 publications

References 47 publications

A New Framework for Classifying Information Systems Modelling Languages

A New Framework for Classifying Information Systems Modelling Languages

Structure-Behavior Coalescence Abstract State Machine for Metamodel-Based Language in Model-Driven Engineering

Multi-view Consistency in UML: A Survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About