Advertisement

Platform-Independent Modelling in MDA: Supporting Abstract Platforms

  • João Paulo Almeida
  • Remco Dijkman
  • Marten van Sinderen
  • Luís Ferreira Pires
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3599)

Abstract

An MDA-based design approach should be able to accommodate designs at different levels of platform-independence. We have previously proposed a design approach [2], which allows these levels to be identified. An important feature of this approach is the notion of abstract platform. An abstract platform is determined by considering the platform characteristics that are relevant for applications at a certain level of platform-independence as well as the various design goals. In this paper, we discuss how our design approach can be supported using the MDA standards UML 2.0 and MOF 2.0. Since our methodological framework is based on the notion of abstract platform, we pay particular attention to the representation of abstract platforms and the language requirements to specify abstract platforms.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Allen, R.J., Garlan, D.: A Formal Basis for Architectural Connection. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 6(3), 213–219 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Almeida, J.P.A., van Sinderen, M., Ferreira Pires, L., Quartel, D.: A systematic approach to platform-independent design based on the service concept. In: Proceedings 7th IEEE Intl. Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2003), pp. 112–123. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Almeida, J.P.A., van Sinderen, M., Ferreira Pires, L.: The role of the RM-ODP Computational Viewpoint Concepts in the MDA approach. In: Proceedings of the 1st European Workshop on Model-Driven Architecture with Emphasis on Industrial Applications(MDA-IA 2004) CTIT Technical Report TR-CTIT-04-12. University of Twente, the Netherlands, pp. 43–51 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arango, G.: Domain Analysis: from Art Form to Engineering Discipline. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 14(3), 152–159 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elrad, T., Filman, R.E., Bader, A.(eds): Communications of the ACM. Special Section on Aspect-Oriented Programming 44(10), 29–97 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferreira Pires, L.: Architectural Notes: a framework for distributed systems development, Ph.D. Thesis. University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ITU-T / ISO: Open Distributed Processing - Reference Model - Part 2: Foundations, ITU-T X.902 | ISO/IEC 10746-2 (1995) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ITU-T / ISO: Open Distributed Processing - Reference Model - Part 3: Architecture, ITU-T X.903 | ISO/IEC 10746-3 (1995) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ITU-T / ISO: Open Distributed Processing - Reference Model - Enterprise Language, ITU-T X.901 | ISO/IEC 15414:2002 (2001) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ITU-T: Recommendation Z.100 - CCITT Specification and Description Language. International Telecommunications Union (2002) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luckham, D., Kenney, J., Augustin, L., Vera, J., Bryan, D., Mann, W.: Specification and Analysis of System Architecture Using Rapide. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21(4), 336–355 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luckham, D., Vera, J.: An Event-Based Architecture Definition Language. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21(9), 717–734 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Microsoft Corporation: Microsoft.NET Remoting: A Technical Overview (2001), available at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/hawkremoting.asp
  14. 14.
    Di Nitto, E., Rosenblum, D.: Exploiting ADLs to Specify Architectural Styles Induced by Middleware Infrastructures. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1999), Los Angeles, CA (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Object Management Group: Model driven architecture (MDA), ormsc/01-07-01 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group: Common Object Request Broker Architecture: Core Specification, Version 3.0, formal/02-12-06 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Object Management Group: CORBA Component Model, Version 3.0, formal/02-06-65 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Object Management Group: MDA-Guide, Version 1.0.1, omg/03-06-01 (2003) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group: Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Core Specification, ptc/03-10-04 (2003) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Object Management Group: Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification, Version 1.4, formal/02-04-03 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group: MOF 2.0 Query / Views / Transformations RFP, ad/2002-04-10 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modelling Language: Object Constraint Language Version 2.0, Draft Adopted Specification, ptc/03-08-08 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Object Management Group: UML 2.0 Superstructure, ptc/03-08-02 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Object Management Group: UML Profile for Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Specification, ptc/02-02-05 (2002) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modelling Language (UML) Specification: Infrastructure, Version 2.0, ptc/03-09-15 (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modelling Language (UML) Specification, Version 1.5, formal/03-03-01 (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sun Microsystems: Java(TM) Message Service Specification Final Release 1.1 (2002), available at http://java.sun.com/products/jms/docs.html
  28. 28.
    World Wide Web Consortium: SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework, W3C Proposed Recommendation (2003), available at http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1
  29. 29.
    World Wide Web Consortium: Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1, W3C Note (2001), available at http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • João Paulo Almeida
    • 1
  • Remco Dijkman
    • 1
  • Marten van Sinderen
    • 1
  • Luís Ferreira Pires
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Telematics and Information TechnologyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations