Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 185–204 | Cite as

Tool Support for Refinement of Non-functional Specifications

  • Simone RöttgerEmail author
  • Steffen Zschaler
Special Issue Paper


Model driven architecture (MDA) views application development as a continuous transformation of models of the target system. We propose a methodology which extends this view to non-functional properties. In previous publications we have shown how we can use so-called context models to make the specification of non-functional measurements independent of their application in concrete system specifications. We have also shown how this allows us to distinguish two roles in the development process: the measurement designer and the application designer.

In this paper we use the notion of context models to allow the measurement designer to provide measurement definitions at different levels of abstraction. A measurement in our terminology is a non-functional dimension that can be constrained to describe a non-functional property. Requiring the measurement designer to define transformations between context models, and applying them to measurement definitions, enables us to provide tool support for refinement of non-functional constraints to the application designer. The paper presents the concepts for such tool support as well as a prototype implementation.


Non-functional properties Model transformation Refinement CASE tool support 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aagedal J.O. Quality of Service Support in Development of Distributed Systems. PhD thesis, University of Oslo (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aigner, R., Pohlack, M., Röttger, S., Zschaler, S.: Towards pervasive treatment of non-functional properties at design and run-time. In: 16th International Conference on Software and Systems Engineering and their Applications (ICSSEA’03). Paris, CNAM-CMSL, 2–4 December 2003Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ArgoUML website. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bandelow D. Entwicklung einer CQML+-Basisbibliothek(in German) Diplomarbeit. Department of Computer Science, Technische Universität Dresden (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C.M., Maler, E.: Extensible markup language (XML) 1.0 (2nd edition) . W3C Recommendation (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruel, J.-M. (ed) Proc Leading of the 1st international Workshop on Quality of Service in Component-Based Software Engineering, Toulouse, France. Cépaduès-Éditions (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chung L., Nixon B.A., Yu E., Mylopoulos J. (2000) Non-Functional Requirements In Software Engineering. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clark, T., Evans, A., Sammut, P., Willans, J.: Applied Metamodelling – A Foundation for Language Driven Development. version 0.1, published on-line at http://www. (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Demairy, E., Anceaume, E., Issarny, V.: On the correctness of multimedia applications. In: 11th EuroMicro Conference. on Real Time Systems. IEEE, June 1999Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dirckze, R.: Java metadata interface(JMI) specification, version 1.0. Java Community Process JSR 040 Final Specification, June 2002. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gamma E., Helm R., Johnson R., Vlissides J. (1995) Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gokhale, A., Natarajan, B., Schmidt, D.C., Nechypurenko, A., Gray, J., Wang, N., Neema, S., Bapty, T., Parsons, J.: Cosmic: an MDA generative tool for distributed real-time and embedded component middleware and applications. In: Proceedings. ACM OOPSLA 2002 Workshop on Generative Techniques in the Context of MDA. Seattle, WA, November 2002Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Härtig, H., Zschaler, S., Aigner, R., Göbel, S., Pohlack, M., Pohl, C., Röttger, S.: Enforceable component-based realtime contracts – supporting realtime properties from software development to execution. Real Time Systems (to appear)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hussmann, H., Demuth, B., Finger, F.: Modular architecture for a toolset supporting OCL. In: Evans, A., Kent, S., Selic, B. (eds) Proceedings of. 3rd International UML Conference. 2000 - The Unified Modeling Language. Advancing the Standard. volume 1939 of LNCS, pp. 278–293. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg Newyork (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Information technology – Quality of Service: Framework. ISO/IEC 13236:1998, ITU-T X.641, 1998Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Issarny, V., Bidan, C.: Aster: a framework for sound customization of distributed runtime systems. In: International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems. pp. 586–593. IEEE Computer Society, 1996Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jézéquel, J.-M., Plouzeau, N., Weis, T., Geihs, K.: From contracts to aspects in UML designs. In: AOSD Workshop on Aspect-Oriented Modeling with UML. Enschede, The Netherlands (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kiczales, G., Lamping, J., Mendhekar, A., Maeda, C., Lopes, C.V., Loingtier, J.-M., Irwin, J.: Aspect-oriented programming. In: Akşit, M., Matsuoka, S. (eds.) 11th European Conference. on Object-Oriented Programming, vol. 1241 of LNCS, pp. 220–242. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg Newyork (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kleppe A., Warmer J., Bast W.(2003) MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Malan, R., Bredemeyer, D., Defining non-functional requirements. Bredemeyer Consulting, White Paper. http://www., 2001Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matula, M.: Netbeans metadata repository, March 2003. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Medvidovic, N., Taylor, R.N.: A framework for classifying and comparing architecture description languages. In: Proceedings of. 6th European Software Engineering Conf. together with 5th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC-FSE97). pp. 60–76, Zurich, Switzerland, September 1997Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meyer, L.: Werkzeugunterstützung für Verfeinerungen nicht-funktionaler Eigenschaften In German. Großer Beleg, Department of Computer Science, Technische Universität Dresden, August 2004.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meyerhöfer, M., Neumann, C.: TESTEJB – a measurement framework for EJBs. In: Crnkovic, I., Stafford, J.A., Schmidt, H.W., Wallnau, K. (eds.) Proceedings. 7th International Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering (CBSE’04). number 3054 in LNCS, pp. 294–301. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    NSUML and NSMDF website. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Object Management Group. MOF 2.0 query, views, transformations request for proposals. OMG Document, April 2002. URL Scholar
  27. 27.
    Object Management Group. UML 2.0 OCL specification. OMG Document, October 2003. URL cgi-bin/doc?ptc/03-10-14Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Object Management Group. Meta object facility specification. OMG Document, October 2003. URL http://www. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Object Management Group. Unified modeling language: Superstructure version 2.0. OMG Document, July 2003. URL Scholar
  30. 30.
    .Object Management Group. UML profile for modeling quality of service and fault tolerance characteristics and mechanisms. OMG Document, June 2004 URL Scholar
  31. 31.
    Röttger, S., Zschaler, S.: CQML+: Enhancements to CQML. In Bruel [6], pp. 43–56Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Röttger, S., Zschaler, S.: A software development process supporting non-functional properties. In: Proceedings of. IASTED International Conference. on Software Engineering (IASTED SE 2004). ACTA Press (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Röttger, S., Zschaler, S.: Model-driven development for non-functional properties: Refinement through model transformation. In: Proceedings of .  <  < UML >  >  Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 2004. volume 3273 of LNCS, pp. 275–289. Springer, Berlin heidelberg Newyork (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sassen, A.-M., Amorós, G., Donth, P., Geihs, K., Jézéquel, J.-M., Odent, K., Plouzeau, N., Weis, T.: QCCS: a methodology for the development of contract-aware components based on aspect oriented design. In: AOSD Early Aspects Workshop. Enschede, The Netherlands, (2002)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shaw, M., DeLine, R., Zelesnik, G.: Abstractions and implementations for architectural connections. In: 3rd International Conference. on Configurable Distributed Systems. IEEE Press (1996)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Simmonds, D.M., Ghosh, S., France, R.: An MDA framework for middleware transparent software development & quality of service. In Bruel [6], pp. 1–7Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sommerville I. (2001) Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stankovic, J.A., Zhu, R., Poornalingam, R., Lu, C.: Yu, Z., Humphrey, M., Ellis, B.: VEST: An aspect-based composition tool for real-time systems. In: Proceedings of the. 9th Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS’03), Toronto, Canada, pp. 58–69. IEEE Press (2003)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tannhäuser, F.: Konzeption und prototypische Umsetzung eines Spezifikationswerkzeugs für CQML+-Spezifikationen. Diplomarbeit, Department of Computer Science, Technische Universität Dresden, December 2003 (In German)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zschaler, S.: Towards a semantic framework for non-functional specifications of component-based systems. In: Steinmetz, R., Mauthe, A. (eds) Proceedings of. EUROMICRO Conference. 2004, Rennes IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations