Analysis of Unified Modelling Language

Analysis of Unified Modelling LanguageChapter 1 IntroductionContext of the ProblemThe Unified Modeling Language is a graphical pattern language employ for the visualization, specification, construction, and documentation of object-oriented softw be ashess. It has been follow by the end Management Group (OMG) and is widely accepted as a standard in industry and research. The UML provides thirteen suits of plats for various purpose. This dissertation foc occasions on chrono formal sequence and segmentation plot known as social organization draw and behavior plat. rank jumps concentrate on the grantation of propulsive aspects of a bundle dodge system, and partitioning forms the structural visual sense of packet system. Sequence diagrams stress time ordering while ramify tension on passive. In Model-driven Architecture (MDA), class diagram is the outset for command propagation in object-oriented outgrowth (Pender, 2003), so how to map what we find in the f undamental interaction diagram back to class diagram become an cardinal written report if we exigency to develop system from behavior aspect initi eithery.There argon few existing relatively modest animate being supportings exploiting the logical dependencies of UML diagrams. many systems maintain method lists across class diagrams and sequence diagrams and the chemise mingled with sequence diagrams and collaboration diagrams. However, now, the cardinal diagrams that sequence and course of study argon steer divided and potentiometer not be transformed between apiece opposite. And there is no comprehensive framework that would support such mechanisms end-to-end these cardinal diagram types in a magisterial way (Selonen et al., 2003). That wasteland much time to maintain system and often make the system development documents should rewrite again and again.To solve these problems, a shifting theorem which taked by Selonen et al. (2003) is cited in this piece. Se lonen et al. (2003) propose a framework and categorize crockedingful shift key actions between different diagram types in UML. These functionings skunk be gived, for example, for pose checking, merging, slicing and subtraction (Selonen et al., 2003).The teddy function enkindle be used as a backside of brute support in UML- lowd nonplusing son of a bitchs. With these trading operations, we plenty get the benefits as follows crystallize diagram becomes easier and faster to create because they buttocks be gived as results of automated operations.Class Diagram becomes to a greater extent consistent and correct because they ar either produced or updated automatically, or checked against separately other exploiting the duty period operations.Improve the softw ar system development offset. The process of vigorous influenceing become from use circumstance to sequence diagram and and whence translated to class diagram. It allow for be more simply and efficienc y.Research Question and sub-questionsHow does the transformation between sequence and Class diagrams make systems easier to develop and maintain and avoid system development documents to be rewritten all the time?What be meta- cast, Meta determination Facility and Object timidity language?How to operate the transformation?How does the transformation work in the palpable world (Examples)?Signifi stackce of the StudySequence diagrams provide a inhering and easy medium for excogitateing the examples of typical propellant interactions of objects, often as refined representations of use fountains. After specimening examples of interactions, the designer should add the randomness implied by the sequence diagrams to the static legal opinion (class diagrams), or check that the static view conforms to the sequence diagrams (Selonen et al., 2000). The sequence diagram and class diagram derived from the said(prenominal) use case and can not be transformed between each other.This pa per discusses a particular UML transformation operation mentioned in (Selonen et al., 2003), which transforms from a sequence diagram into a class diagram. The transformation operation is establish on the UML 2.0 Specification (OMG, 2003), which particularizes the syntax and semantics of UML. The thesis defines the rules on the sorts of this transformation operation and gives a transformation example to show the result of transformation. This paper exit concentrate on the conceptual research of UML semantics, and do not concentrate on any development tool.However, OCL depart be used to describe the transformation rules and hoped can be used in UML-based determineing tools development. I hope that the travel of imitateing will improve congest for synthesizing a impertinently class diagram from an existing sequence diagram can provide significant help for the designer. much(prenominal) deductive reasoning operation helps the designer keep the two diagrams consistent because the synthesized class diagram can be compared with existing class diagram. The transformation operation excessively speeds up the design process, and to decrease the risk of human errors. In UML CASE tool vendors can implement this transformation operation in their tools to get the benefits describe above.Research Design and MethodologyThe protocol for this research project is more often than not development qualitative by design. A Case study will be used as the most important a schema of research methodology in the study. The research process consists of vi steps. It collects and synopsis the documents and papers which are corresponding to the UML transformation thesis, OCL and MDA transformation theory. and so proposing a transformation framework for transformation from sequence diagram to class diagram and concluding transformation chromosome mapping rules. This paper will testify and decree the transformation mapping rules via implement a material case of agile cas t development process. And finally proposing the research result, and discuss the conclusion and future day work.Organization of the StudyChapter 1 IntroductionChapter one introduces the research. This chapter will present the context of the problem, the problem statement, the main research question, the significance of the study, and the research methodology used to address the main research question.Chapter 2 Review of the booksChapter two gives an overview of the background literature for the thesis.Chapter 3 Meta- pattern, Meta Object Facility and Object Constraint languageChapter three will give the brief design of UML, MDA, meta-model, transformation and OCL are described at graduation exercise, followed are the separate meta-models of sequence and class diagram.Chapter 4 Operation of the TransformationChapter four will propose a framework of transformation from Sequence diagram to Class diagram. Also, a rule will be defined on every phase of transformation, using OCL to d escribe transformation rules.Chapter 5 Example of the TranslationsChapter five will be working on a Case Study, and demonstrating the transformation for a true case in the real world.Chapter 6 ConclusionChapter six will present the summery and conclusion.Chapter 2 Review of Literature2.1 UMLThe complexity in software development process of getting from a found of requirements to a proper abstraction of the solution leads people to develop models. A model is a simplification of something so we can view, manipulate, and reason slightly it, and so help us understand the complexity inherent in the subject under study (Mellor et al., 2004). The UML is a family of graphical bank bills, backed by single meta-model, that help in describing and designing software systems, particularly software systems built using the object-oriented (OO) style (Fowler, 2003).The Unified Modeling Language (UML), since adopted as a standard (UML 1.1) by OMG in 1997, has become a widely accepted as standar d for modeling a software system. The latest UML version 2.0 has been formally adopted in June 2003, and it will be applied by means of out this thesis. UML 2 describes 13 official diagram types which get along in two categories depending on whether they describe structural or behavioural aspects of a software system.The UML can capture an array of processes and complex body parts which related to backup and software. UML has such power that a modeler can use it for the oecumenical computer architecture of any construction that has both a static structure and fighting(a) behavior. A project can rely on UML as the standard language to express requirements, system design, deployment instructions, and law structure (Eriksson et al., 2004).2.2 bustling ModelingTest case modeling and an exploitationary procession are two major and strongly related techniques to model transformation (Rumpe, 2004). UML nowadays has become popular modeling language for software intensive systems u sed. Models can be used for a variety of purposes.One advantage of using models for test case explanation is the act specific parts which are modeled with UML-diagrams, such as connection to frameworks, error handling, persistence, or communication are handled by the parameterized inscribe generator (Rumpe, 2004). This allows us to develop models which can be independent of any technology or platform, such as PIM. When the technology changes, we only make to update the generator, and the application defining models can groomly be reused. This concept also directly supports the above mentioned MDA-Approach (OMG, 2005) of the OMG. other important merit is that both of the production command and automatically viable tests are modeled by the resembling UML diagrams. Therefore developers could use a single homogeneous language to describe performance and tests. This will nurture the availability of tests at the beginning of the coding activities. Analogously to the test show time approach (Beck, 2001), sequence diagrams are used for test cases and can be taken from the previously modeled requirements.When we turn out software modeling by drawing classes in a class diagram does not mean we are developing a class model. Instead, we are developing a software model by defining static aspects through a static view. If we start our development by drawing a dynamic diagram, like the state or sequence diagram, we are developing a software model by defining dynamic aspects through a dynamic view. The class and sequence diagrams could better be called structural and dynamic views. They are all written in the similar language UML (Kleppe et al, 2003).In speedy modeling (Ambler, 2002), we develop an Information system in undermentioned steps by using UML.System Use Case ModelsUI PrototypesUML Class DiagramsUML Sequence DiagramsUML Activity DiagramsUse case diagram shows a quash of external actors and their connection to the use cases that the system provides. A use case is a description of a availableity (a specific physical exertion of the system) that the system provides. The description of the actual use case is normally done in recoil text or as a document linked to the use case. The functionality and flow can also be described using an body process diagram. The use case description only views the system behavior as the user perceives it and does not describe how the functionality is provided inside the system.Use cases define the functional requirements of the system. Sequence diagrams address an interaction and may be used to model flows indoors use cases (Booch et al., 1999). They show how the objects interact to execute operations, emphasis on the time ordering of the messages. Class diagrams shows a collection of declarative (static) model elements, such as classes, types, and their contents and congenerships. Once we absorb the use cases, the following(a) step is to create the class diagram. This is the heart of the ob ject-oriented model.This paper concentrates on the steps of modeling from Use Case Models to Class Diagrams and sequence Diagrams.2.3 MDAThe MDA is a reinvigorated software engineering approach developed and published by the Object Management Group (OMG). One fundamental observation in the evolution of living software systems over the years is that their basic design models are mostly unchanged. Most changes to evolving software systems take place only at engineering level, forced by the introduction of new technologies and platforms (BAohme et al., 2005).MDA promotes simply the usage of models for the whole software system development. To capture the problem of technology evolution MDA defines two categories of models. The first one is for abstract modeling of the software systems at the design level. This model class is called Platform Independent Model (PIM). The wink category is related to specific platforms and technologies. It contains mainly engineering aspects of the soft ware system and is called Platform Specific Model (PSM). Between these two classes of models, MDA defines a relation in the form of several transformations, which ensure the structural equivalence of PIM and PSM. other key issue of MDA is a technology framework for different kinds of model handling (storage, exchange, mapping of models, etc.). The Meta Object Facility (MOF) (OMG, 2000) is convenient for this purpose. Historically modeling languages were defined by abstract grammars. MOF instead defines modeling languages on the base of so-called Meta-Models. Meta-Models are models ( pillowcases) of built-in MOF concepts. Using this framework the developer can focus more on the definition of mappings between models rather than having to struggle with medium model handling.This is due to the fact that MOF comes with a method for the definition of model classes (Meta-Models) and for the exchange of models using the XML Metadata Interchange (XMI). In addition, MOF provides mappings of Meta-Models to repository interfaces as well. Such a repository holds all necessary information about model instances. The above argument is correct for most of todays component technology. To show the real application we have to choose concrete Meta-Models for PIM and PSM. This also leads to the selection of grab Meta-Models and notations for PIM and PSM.One requirement for both is the support of the component concept as a first class concept. Moreover, the Meta-Model for the PSM should be part of a clear(p) and established component technology. Because the spread industrial usage is a process consuming several years, the suitable technologies have traditional syntax based languages for component definition.MDA exploits the emergence of a class of tools, which support model version and allow meta-model manipulation. Meta-models are models of the formalism used to build models. They define the variant kinds of contained model elements and the way they are arranged, related and c onstrained. The process of developing a model results in the creation of instances of the model elements defined in the meta-model the meta-model is inhabit with instance data. Model transformation is the process of converting a model uttered in one formalism to other model of the same system expressed using a different formalism.This can be achieved by building a meta-model of each of the source and bottom model representations and then defining a mapping between them. The meta-model of the source model is be with instance data of the specific source model to be transformed. The mapping rules are applied as a set of operations invoked on the source meta-model, which results in a meta-model of the target model populated with instance data. This populated target meta-model is then used to generate the target model (or possibly the target text in the case of code generation. (Bloomfield, 2005)2.4 Models, modeling, and MDAModels and model-driven software development are at the hea rt of the MDA approach. So it is appropriate to start by looking at what is being utilizationd when enterprise application developers take advantage of modeling. In the software engineering world, modeling has a rich tradition from the earliest days of computer program. The most recent innovations have focused on notations and tools that allow users to express system perspectives of value to software architects and developers in ways that are readily mapped into the programming language code that can be compiled for a particular operating system platform.The up-to-date state of this practice employs the Unified Modeling Language (UML) as the chief(a) modeling notation (Rumbaugh et al.,1999). The UML allows development groups to capture a variety of important characteristics of a system in corresponding models. Transformations among these models are primarily manual, with tool support for managing traceability and dependency affinitys among modeling elements, supported by best practice guidance on how to maintain synchronized models as part of a jumbo-scale development effort. One useful way to characterize electric current practice is to look at the different ways in which the models are synchronized with the source code.Each category identifies a particular use of models in assisting software practitioners to create running applications (code) for a specific runtime platform, and the relationship between the models and the code. Today, most of software developers still take a code-only approach, and do not use separately defined models at all. They rely to the highest degree entirely on the code they write, and they express their model of the system they are building directly in a 3rd generation programming language such as Java, C++, or C within an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) such as IBM weaveSphere Studio, Eclipse, and Microsoft VisualStudio. both modeling they do is in the form of programming abstractions engraft in the code (e.g., packages, modules, interfaces, etc.), which are managed through mechanisms such as program libraries and object hierarchies. Any separate modeling of architectural designs is informal and intuitive, and lives on whiteboards, in PowerPoint sides, or in the developers heads. While this may be adequate for individuals and very nonaged aggroups, this approach makes it difficult to understand key characteristics of the system among the details of the executing of the business logic.Furthermore, it becomes much more difficult to manage the evolution of these solutions as their scale and complexity increases, as the system evolves over time, or when the reliable members of the design aggroup are not directly accessible to the team maintaining the system. An addition is to provide code visualizations in some appropriate modeling notation. As developers create or analyze an application, they often want to regard the code through some graphical notation that aids their concord of the codes structure or behavior.It may also be possible to manipulate the graphical notation as an alternative to alter the text based code, so that the visual rendering becomes a direct representation of the code. Such rendering is sometimes called a code model, or an executing model, although many feel it more appropriate to call these artifacts diagrams and check the use of model for higher levels of abstraction. Some tools that allow such diagrams (e.g., IBM Web Sphere Studio and Borland Together/J), the code view and the model view can be displayed simultaneously as the developer manipulates either view the other is immediately synchronized with it. In this approach, the diagrams are tightly coupled representations of the code and provide an alternative way to view and possibly edit at the code level.Further advantage of the models can be taken through roundtrip engineering (RTE) between an abstract model of the system describing the system architecture or design, and the code. The developer typically elaborates the system design to some level of detail, then creating a first-pass implementation from the code generated by applying model-to-code transformations, usually manually. For instance, one team working on the high level design provides design models to the team working on the implementation (perhaps simply by printing out model diagrams, or providing the implementation team some files containing the models). The implementation team converts this abstract, high-level design into a detailed set of design models and the programming language implementation.Iterations of these representations will occur as errors and their corrections are make in either the design or the code. Consequently, without considerable discipline, the abstract models and the implementation models usually and quickly end up out of step. Tools can automate the initial transformation, and can help to keep the design and implementation models in step as they evolve. Typically the t ools generate code stubs from the design models that the user has to further refine. As changes are made to the code they must at some point be reconciled with the original model. To achieve this some approach to recognize generated versus user defined code is used such as placing markers in the code.Tools adopting this approach, such as IBM logical Rose, can fracture multiple transformation services supporting RTE between models and different implementation languages. In a model-centric approach, models of the system are established in comfortable detail that the full implementation of the system can be generated from the models themselves. To achieve this, the models may include, for example, representations of the persistent and non persistent data, business logic, and presentation elements. Any desegregation to legacy data and services may require that the interfaces to those elements are also modeled. In some cases much more than code stubs can be generated depending on the fidelity of the models of patterns to transform the models to code, frequently allowing the developer some choice in the patterns that are applied (e.g., among various deployment topologies).To further assist in the code generation, this approach frequently makes use of standard or proprietary application frameworks and runtime services that ease the code generation task by trammel the styles of applications that can be generated. Hence, tools using this approach typically specialize in the generation of particular styles of applications (e.g., IBM Rational Rose Technical Developer for real-time embedded systems). However, in all cases the models are the primary artifact created and manipulated by developers.A model-only approach is at the far-right end of the modeling spectrum. In this approach developers use models purely as thought aids in appreciation the business or solution domain, or for analyzing the architecture of a proposed solution. Models are frequently used as the b asis for discussion, communication, and analysis among teams within a single organization, or across multi-organizational projects. These models frequently appear in proposals for new work, or adorn the walls of offices and cubes in software labs everywhere as a way of understanding some complex domain of interest, and establishing a share vocabulary and set of concepts among disparate teams. In practice the implementation of a system, whether from scratch or updating an existing solution, may be a great deal disconnected from the models. An interesting example of this approach can be seen in the growing number of organizations who outsource implementation and maintenance of their systems while maintaining authorization of the overall enterprise architecture.2.5 Transformations between UML diagramsUML provides different diagram types supporting the development process from requirements specification to implementation (Selonen et al., 2001). The models presented by different diagr ams view a system from different perspectives or from different abstraction levels. Therefore, the various UML models of the same system are not independent specifications but strongly overlapping they depend on each other in many ways. For Instance, changes in one model may imply changes in another, and a large portion of one model may be synthesized on the basis of another model.So far there exists relatively modest tool support exploiting the logical dependencies of UML models. Some systems (e.g. Rational Rose) maintain, for instance, method lists across class diagrams and sequence diagrams adding a call of a new method in a sequence diagram automatically causes the corresponding updating of the class symbol in a class diagram. Another example is the transformation between sequence diagrams and collaboration diagrams, also supported by Rational Rose. However, there is no comprehensive framework that would support such mechanisms passim Class diagram and Sequence diagram in a sys tematic way.This paper studies the relationships of Class diagram and Sequence diagram in UML, and transformation operations that are based on those relationships. A transformation operation takes a UML diagram as its operand (the source diagram), and produces another diagram of another type as its result (the target diagram). It considers such transformation operations as an essential part of a UML- based software design environment. The transformation operations can be used for example in the following waysModel checkingAre two diagrams consistent with each other? It is much easier to find inconsistencies between two diagrams of the same type than between two diagrams of different types. If the diagrams are of different types, transformation operations can be first applied to obtain two diagrams of the same type, which are then compared for consistency.Model mergingAdd the information contained in one diagram to another diagram. Merging the modeling information of two diagrams is much easier when the diagrams are of the same type (Alanen and Porres, 2003). If the diagrams are of different types, transformation operations can be first applied to obtain two diagrams of the same type, which are then merged.Model slicingCreate a partial view of a diagram showing only a particular aspect. Often the aspect can be presented in the form of another diagram (of some other type). For example, one may want to see a dynamic slice of a static diagram. The diagram representing the slicing criterion (for example, a dynamic diagram) can be first transformed into the type of the target diagram (for example, a static diagram). An interbreeding of the two diagrams of the same type then shows the desired slice.Model synthesisProduce a diagram on the basis of an existing diagram of another type. This is the most straightforward usage of transformation operations. Such synthesis can be useful for two purposes to obtain automatically an initial form of a diagram needed in a conco mitant phase of the software development process, or to obtain a different view of the information contained by a diagram. The latter may be used just as a transient view on a model, rather than as a persistent design artifact.2.6 kind of Transformation OperationSelonen et al. (2003) use the UML meta-model to define the transformation between UML diagrams. Since diagram types are only very loosely defined (the same notation may represent different meaning on different diagrams), we need to establish a precise mapping from a graphical view representing a diagram type to a model i.e. we must define a model that corresponds to a inclined diagram. This model contains exactly the logical information exposed by the diagram, needed by the transformation operations. We will call this model the minimum model of the diagram.As we do this for all diagram types, we are able to define transformations between diagram types as functions from the meta-model of a diagram type to the meta-model of another diagram type. Such a function takes the minimal model of the source diagram as its argument, and produces the minimal model of the target diagram. They call the transformation rules the interpretation of the transformation. Assuming that the mappings from the source diagram into its minimal model, from this minimal model into the minimal model of the target diagram, and finally into the target diagram, are all defined uniquely, the transformation between two diagram types becomes fully defined (Selonen et al.,2003).First, take a given sequence diagram and map the sequence diagram to its minimal model. Then transform this minimal model to a minimal model of a class diagram. Finally, this minimal model is mapping to a class diagram in model level. This thesis will base on this process to introduce a definite transformation operation. speechTom Pender. (2003). UML volume (1st edition). Wiley, ISBN 0764526049Martin Fowler. (2004). UML Distilled (3rd edition), Wesley, ISBN 0321 193687Hans-Erik Eriksson, Magnus Penker, Brain Lyons, and David Fado. (2004). UML 2Toolkit, Wiley, ISBN 0471463612Ambler. (2002). Agile Modeling Effective Practices for Extreme computer programing and theUnified Process, Wiley, ISBN 0471202827Jos Warmer, Anneke Kleppe.(2003). The Object Constraint Language Getting YourModels Ready for MDA (2nd Edition), Wesley, ISBN 0321179366Grzegorz Rozenberg.(1997). handbook on Graph Grammars and Computing by GraphTransformation Foundations (1st edition), human being Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 9810228848James Rumbaugh, Grady Booch, and Ivar Jacobson. (1999). The Unified ModelingLanguage Reference Manual, Wesley, ISBN 020130998XJams R Rumbaugh, Michael R. Blaha, William Lorensen, Frederick Eddy. (1991).Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, Prentice Hall United States Ed edition, ISBN0136298419Rumpe, B.(2004). Agile Modeling with the UML, Springer-Verlag Berlin HeidelbergPetri Selonen, Kai Koskimies and Markku Sakkinen. (2001). How to M ake Apples fromOranges in UML. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii international Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved February 21, 2008,from http//csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2001/0981/03/09813054.pdfPetri Selonen, Kai Koskimies and Markku Sakkinen. (2003). Transformations betweenUML diagrams. Journal of Database Management. Retrieved February 21, 2008,from http//www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-23439697_ITMPetri Selonen (2000). Scenario-based synthesis of Annotated Class Diagramsin UML. Tampere University of Technology, Retrieved February 21, 2008,from http//citeseer.ist.psu.edu/462963.htmlMellor, S. J., Scott, K., Uhl, A., and Weise,D., MD. (2004). a Distilled Principles ofModel-Driven. Wesley, Retrieved February 22, 2008,From http//www.metamodel.com/,2005OMG. (2003). UML 2.0 OCL Specification, Retrieved February 22, 2008,from http//www.omg.org/docs/ptc/03-10-14.pdf,2003Tony Bloomfield. (2005). MDA,Meta-Modelling,and Model Transformationintroduction forw ard-looking Technology into the Defence Industry, Retrieved February 22, 2008,from http//www.enabler.com/en/skills/ecmda/PAPER_Bloomfield.pdf