Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 424–442 | Cite as

Platform independent Web application modeling and development with Netsilon

  • Pierre-Alain Muller
  • Philippe Studer
  • Frédéric Fondement
  • Jean Bezivin
Special Issue Paper

Abstract

This paper discusses platform independent Web application modeling and development in the context of model-driven engineering. A specific metamodel (and associated notation) is introduced and motivated for the modeling of dynamic Web specific concerns. Web applications are represented via three independent but related models (business, hypertext and presentation). A kind of action language (based on OCL and Java) is used all over these models to write methods and actions, specify constraints and express conditions. The concepts described in the paper have been implemented in the Netsilon tool and operational model-driven Web information systems have been successfully deployed by translation from abstract models to platform specific models.

Keywords

MDA PIMs PSMs Web application development 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bezivin, J.: From object composition to model transformation with the MDA. In: Proceedings of TOOLS'2001, pp. 350–354 IEEE Press Tools#39 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Object Management Group, Inc.: MDA Guide 1.0.1. omg/2003-06-01 (June 2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gellersen, H.-W., Gaedke, M.: Object-oriented Web application Development. IEEE Internet Computing, pp. 60–68 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    El Kaim, W., Burgard, O., Muller P.-A.: MDA Compliant Product Line Methodology, Technology and Tool for Automatic Generation and Deployment of Web Information Systems. Journées du Génie Logiciel, Paris (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nielsen, J.: Hypertext and Hypermedia: The Internet and Beyond. Academic Press (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McDonald, A., Welland, R.: Web engineering in practice. In: Proceedings of the fourth WWW10 Workshop on Web Engineering pp. 21–30 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fraternali, P.: Tools and approaches for developing data-intensive Web applications: a survey. ACM Computing Surveys (3), 227–263 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mellor, S.J., Clark, A.N., Futagami, T.: Model-driven development. IEEE Software, pp 14–18, (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gomez, J., Cachero, C.: OO-H Method: Extending UML to Model Web Interfaces, pp. 144–173. IDEA Group Publishing (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koch, N., Kraus, A.: The expressive power of UML-based Web Engineering. In: Schwabe, D., Pastor, O., Rossi, G., Olsina, L. (eds.), Proc. 2nd Int. Wsh. Web-Oriented Software Technology (IWOOST'02), CYTED (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ceri, S., Fraternali, P., Bongio, A.: Web modeling language (WebML): a modeling language for designing Web sites. In: Ninth International World Wide Web Conference (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marcos, E., Vela, B., Cavero, J.-M.: A methodological approach for object-relational database design using UML. Soft. Syst. Mode. 2(1), 59–72 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roch, M.-C., Muller, P.-A., Thirion, B.: Improved flexibility of a document production line through object-oriented remodeling. In: Second Congress IMACS, Computational Engineering in Systems Applications, Hammamet, CESA'98, vol. III, pp. 152–159. Vabeul-Hammamet Tunisie, (98)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Object Management Group, Inc.: Meta Object Facility (MOF), 1.4. formal/02-04-03 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Object Management Group, Inc.: Software Process Engineering Metamodel (SPEM), 1.0. formal/02-11-14 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Conallen, J.: Building Web Applications with UML. The Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Desfray, P.: UML Profiles versus Metamodeling Extensions... an Ongoing Debate. Uml In The.Com Enterprise: Modeling CORBA, Components, XML/XMI And Metadata Workshop, Palm Springs, 6–9 (Nov. 2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Atkinson, C., Kuehne, T., Henderson-Sellers, B.: To meta or not to meta—that is the question. J.Object-Oriented Program. 13(8), 32–35 (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mellor, S.J., Tockey, S., Arthaud, R., Leblanc, P.: An action language for UML: proposal for a precise execution semantics. UML 98, LNCS1618, pp. 307–318 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Silaghi, R., Strohmeier, A.: Parallax, or viewing designs through a prism of middleware platforms. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Scienes, HICSS, Hilton Waikoloa Village, Big Island of Hawaii, HI, USA, January 3–6, 2005, part of the Mini-track on Adaptive and Evolvsble Software Systems, AESS. IEEE Computer Society (Digital Library), 2005. Also available as Technical Report IC/2004/69, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, Switzerland, August (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sunyé, G., Pennaneac'h, F., Ho, W.-M., Le, Guennec, A., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Using UML action semantics for executable modeling and beyond. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M.C. (eds.), Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE 2001, vol. 2068 of LNCS, pp. 433–447. Interlaken, Switzerland, Springer (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    iUML AS: Kennedy Carter, Ltd.: UML ASL Reference Guide, ASL Language Level 2.5, Manual Revision C (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    ProjTech AL: Project Technology, Inc., Object Action Language TM Manual. vol. 1.4 (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Telelogic, A.B.: UML 2.0 Action Semantics and Telelogic TAU/Architect and TAU/Developer Action Language. vol. 1 (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Object Management Group, Inc.: UML 1.5. formal/03-03-01 (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Object Management Group, Inc.: UML 2.0 OCL Final Adopted specification. ptc/03-10-14 (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cook, S., Daniels, J.: Object-Oriented Modelling with Syntropy, 1st edition. Prentice Hall (1994)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spivey, J.: The Z Notation: A Reference Manual, Second edition. Prentice Hall (1992)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Richters, M.: A Precise approach to validating UML models and OCL constraints. PhD Thesis, Universität Bremen, Biss Monographs vol. 14 (2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Object Management Group, Inc.: MOF 2.0 Query/Views/Transformations RFP. ad/02-04-10 (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Abrial, J.-R.: The B-Book. Cambridge University Press (1996)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jackson, D.: Alloy: A Lightweight Object Modelling Notation. Technical Report 797, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, Cambridge, MA (2000)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
    Knuth, D.E.: The Art of Computer Programming, Sorting and Searching, Second Edition. vol. 3. Addison-Wesley (1998)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hussmann, H., Demuth, B., Finger, F: Modular Architecture for a Toolset Supporting OCL. Sci. Comput. Program. (Special issue on UML 2000) 44(1), 51–69 (2002)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schattkowsky, T., Lohmann, M.: Rapid development of modular dynamic Web sites using UML. In: UML 2002 Conference, LNCS 2460, pp. 336–350 (2002)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    The TopModL Open Source Initiative: http://www.topmodl.org

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre-Alain Muller
    • 1
  • Philippe Studer
    • 2
  • Frédéric Fondement
    • 3
  • Jean Bezivin
    • 4
  1. 1.INRIA RennesRennesFrance
  2. 2.ESSAIM/MIPSUniversité de Haute-AlsaceMulhouseFrance
  3. 3.École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) School of Computer and Communication SciencesLausanneSwitzerland
  4. 4.ATLAS Group, INRIA & LINAUniversité de NantesNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations