Software Quality Journal

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 31–69 | Cite as

Towards Formalised Guidelines for Migrating Structured Designs to UML: A Case Study

  • Elli Georgiadou
  • Eleni Berki
  • Maria del Brezo Cordero
  • Margaret Ross
  • Geoff Staples
Article

Abstract

This paper provides evidence that it is possible to migrate structured system designs to UML models. Legacy structured designs can be converted to object-oriented systems without losing data or functionality. The reason for choosing UML is that it is the new standard notation, which tries to build on and integrate object-oriented notations. Extracts from a case study are presented together with the proposed guidelines for the re-engineering process.

Keywords

re-engineering structured designs OO UML isomorphic models reuse testing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, P. and Frost, S. 1998. Component Based Development for Enterprise Systems. Applying the SELECT Perspective, SIGS Books. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  2. Avison, D. and Fitzgerald, G. 1995. Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools. McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
  3. Berki, E. 2001. Establishing a scientific discipline for capturing the entropy of systems process models, CDM-FILTERS: A computational and dynamic metamodel as a flexible and integrating language for the testing, expression and re-engineering of systems, Ph.D. Thesis, University of North London. Google Scholar
  4. Berki, E. and Georgiadou, E. 1996. Resolving Data Flow Diagramming deficiencies by using Finite State Machines, Proceedings of 5th Software Quality Conference, University of Abertay, Dundee, Scotland. Google Scholar
  5. Berki, E., Georgiadou, E., Sadler, C., and Siakas, K.V. 1997. A methodology is as strong as the user participation. Proceedings of International Symposium on Software Engineering in Universities—ISSEU’97, Rovaniemi, Finland. Google Scholar
  6. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., and Jacobson, I. 1999. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
  7. Coad, P., North, D., and Mayfield, M. 1995. Object Models. Strategies, Patterns and Applications. Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
  8. del Brezo Cordero, M. 1998. Software design re-engineering—migrating from structure design to UML, B.Sc. Erasmus Exchange Project. Google Scholar
  9. Ezran, M., Morisio, M., and Tully, C. 2001. Practical Software Reuse. London, Springer. Google Scholar
  10. Georgiadou, E. and Sadler, C. 1995. Achieving quality improvement through understanding and evaluating Information Systems Development Methodologies, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Quality Management, SQM’95, Seville, Spain, April 1995. Google Scholar
  11. Henderson-Sellers, B., Graham, I.M., Swatman, P., Winder, R.L., and Reenskaug, T. 1996. Using object-oriented techniques to model the lifecycle for OO software development, Proceedings of OOIS, 1996, p. 211. Google Scholar
  12. Jackson, M. 1994. Problems, methods and specialisation, Software Engineering Journal 11(6): 57–62. Google Scholar
  13. Jayaratna, N. 1994. Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies, NIMSAD: A Systemic Approach. McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
  14. Law, D. 1998. Methods for comparing methods: Techniques in software development, NCC Publications. Google Scholar
  15. Law, D. and Naeem, T. 1992. DESMET: Determining and evaluation methodology for software methods and tools, Proceedings of BCS Conference on CASE—Current Practice, Future Prospects, Cambridge, England. Google Scholar
  16. Manninen, A. and Berki, E. 2004. An evaluation framework for requirements management tools, Proceedings of the 13th SQM Conference, BCS, Canterbury. Google Scholar
  17. Mohamed-Bakry, W. 1999. Specifications reuse via homogeneous interpretation of concepts, Proceedings of BITWorld 99, Conference on Business Information Management, South Africa, ed. A. Bytheway. Google Scholar
  18. Presuman, R. 2004. Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach. McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
  19. Ross, M., Staples, G., and Hawkins, C. 1997. From temporary awareness to crisis management—the Year 2000 problem, Software Quality Journal, December. Google Scholar
  20. Sutcliffe, A.G. and Carroll, J.M. 1999. Designing claims for reuse in interactive systems design, International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 50(3): 213–242. Google Scholar
  21. Wilkie, G. 1993. Object-Oriented Software Engineering. The Professional’s Developers Guide. Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
  22. Yourdon, E. 1988. Modern Structured Analysis, Yourdon Press Computing Series. Pearson Education. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elli Georgiadou
    • 1
  • Eleni Berki
    • 2
  • Maria del Brezo Cordero
    • 3
  • Margaret Ross
    • 4
  • Geoff Staples
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Computing ScienceMiddlesex UniversityLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Information SystemsUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  3. 3.Faculty of Science, Higher Technical School of Computer Engineering, Department of InformaticsValladolid UniversityValladolidSpain
  4. 4.Faculty of Systems EngineeringSouthampton InstituteSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations