Supporting Several Levels of Restriction in the UML

  • Christian Heide Damm
  • Klaus Marius Hansen
  • Michael Thomsen
  • Michael Tyrsted
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1939)


The emergence of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) has provided software developers with an effective and efficient shared language. However, UML is often too restrictive in initial, informal, and creative modelling, and it is in some cases not restrictive enough, e.g., for code generation. Based on user studies, we propose that tool and meta-level support for several levels of restriction in diagrams and models is needed. We furthermore present a tool, Knight, which supports several levels of restriction as well as ways of transferring models from one level of restriction to another. This approach potentially increases the usability of the UML, and thus ultimately leads to greater quality and adoption of UML models.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aaen, I., Siltanen, A., Sørensen, C., & Tahvanainen, V.-P. (1992). A Tale of two Countries: CASE Experiences and Expectations. In Kendall, K.E., Lyytinen, K., & DeGross, J. (Eds.), The impact of Computer Supported Technologies on Information Systems Development (pp 61–93). IFIP Transactions A (Computer Science and Technology), A-8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beaduoin-Lafon, M. (2000). Instrumental Interaction: An Interaction Model for Designing Post-WIMP User Interfaces. In Proceedings of Computer Human Interaction (CHI’2000). The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bunse, C., Atkinson, C. (1999). The Normal Object Form: Bridging the Gap from Models to Code. In Proceedings of ≪UML≫’99 — The Unified Modeling Language, pp. 675–690, Fort Collins, CO, USA, October.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christensen, M., Crabtree, A., Damm, C.H., Hansen, K.M., Madsen, O.L., Marqvardsen, P., Mogensen, P., Sandvad, E., Sloth, L., & Thomsen, M. (1998). The M.A.D. Experience: Multiperspective Application Development in Evolutionary Prototyping. In Proceedings of ECOOP’98, Bruxelles, Belgium, July, Springer-Verlag, LNCS series, volume 1445.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Damm, C.H., Hansen, K.M., & Thomsen, M. (2000). Tool Support for Cooperative Object-Oriented Design: Gesture Based Modeling on an Electronic Whiteboard. In Proceedings of Computer Human Interaction (CHI’2000). The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Damm, C.H., Hansen, K.M., Thomsen, M., & Tyrsted, M. (2000). Creative Object-Oriented Modelling: Support for Intuition, Flexibility, and Collaboration in CASE Tools. To appear in Proceedings of ECOOP’2000. Cannes, France.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Damm, C.H., Hansen, K.M., Thomsen, M., & Tyrsted, M. (2000). Tool Integration: Experiences and Issues in Using XMI and Component Technology. To appear in Proceedings of TOOLS Europe’2000. Brittany, France.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Egyed, A. & Medvidovic, N. (1999). Extending Architectural Representation in UML with View Integration. In France, R. & Rumpe, B. (Eds.) ≪UML≫’99 — The Unified Modelling Language. Beyond the Standard. Second International Conference. LNCS 1723, Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evans, A. & Kent, S. (1999). Core Meta-Modelling Semantics of UML: The pUML Approach. In France, R. & Rumpe, B. (Eds.) ≪UML≫’99 — The Unified Modelling Language. Beyond the Standard. Second International Conference. LNCS 1723, Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., & Vlissides, J. (1995). Design Patterns. Elements of Reusable Object/Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. (1991). Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haake, J.M., Neuwirth, C.M., Streitz, N.A. (1994). Coexistence and Transformation of Informal and Formal Structures: Requirements for More Flexible Hypermedia Systems. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM European conference on Hypermedia technology, pp. 1–12. Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iivari, J. (1996). Why Are CASE Tools Not Used? In Communications of the ACM, 39(10).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jarzabek, S. & Huang, R. (1998) The Case for User-Centered CASE Tools. In Communications of the ACM, 41(8).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kemerer, C.F. (1992). How the Learning Curve Affects CASE Tool Adoption. In IEEE Software, 9(3).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Landay, J.A. & Myers, B.A. (1995) Interactive Sketching for the Early Stages of User Interface Design. In Proceedings of Computer Human Interaction (CHI’95).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lending, D. & Chervany, N.L. (1998). The Use of CASE Tools. In Agarwal, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1998 ACM SIGCPR Conference, ACM.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Madsen, O.L., Møller-Pedersen, B., & Nygaard, K. (1993). Object-Oriented Programming in the BETA Programming Language, ACM Press, Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McLennan, M.J. (1993). [incr Tcl]: Object-Oriented Programming. In Proceedings of the Tcl/Tk Workshop, University of California at Berkeley, June 10-11.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Object Managment Group (1998). XML Metadata Interchange (XMI), document ad/98-07-01, July.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Object Managment Group (2000). OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, document formal/00-03-01, March.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ousterhout, J. (1994). Tcl and the Tk Toolkit. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rogerson, D. (1997). Inside COM. Microsoft’s Component Object Model. Microsoft Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24. Rubine, D. (1991). Specifying Gestures by Example. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH’91, 329–337.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Heide Damm
    • 1
  • Klaus Marius Hansen
    • 1
  • Michael Thomsen
    • 1
  • Michael Tyrsted
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of AarhusAarhus NDenmark

Personalised recommendations