Advertisement

The Model Driven ArchitectureApproach: A Framework for Developing Complex Agricultural Systems

  • Petraq PapajorgjiEmail author
  • Ryan Clark
  • Eric Jallas
Chapter
Part of the Springer Optimization and Its Applications book series (SOIA, volume 25)

Abstract

Development and application of crop models is increasingly constrained by the difficulty of implementing scientific information into an efficient simulation environment. Traditionally, researchers wrote their own models and tools, but as software has become much more complex, few researchers have the means to continue using this approach. New modeling paradigms provided by the software engineering industry can be successfully used to facilitate the process of software development for crop simulation systems.

This chapter outlines a model driven architecture (MDA )-based approach to construct a crop simulation model . This new modeling paradigm is a Unified Modeling Language (UML) -based approach. A conceptual model of the problem is first constructed to depict concepts from the domain of the crop simulation and their relationships. The conceptual model is then provided with details about the role each of the concepts plays in the simulation. The multiplicity of the associations between concepts is determined, and the behavior of each of the objects representing concepts of the domain is defined. Mostly, an object’s behavior in the crop simulation domain is expressed using equations. For this type of behavior, this new modeling paradigm offers a declarative way to write equations using attributes of objects participating in the conceptual diagram . For behavior that cannot be expressed through equations, a formal language is used to model behavior without the ambiguities that can be introduced by the use of natural language. Models can be validated and logical flows can be discovered before code generation.

An Extensible Markup Language (XML) representation of the conceptual model is used by an engine that generates automatically executable code in several programming environments such as Java , Enterprise Java Beans, Visual Basic, and .NET. Results obtained from this new approach are presented, and they coincide with results obtained with other approaches.

References

  1. 1.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I. 1999. The Unified Modelling Language User Guide. Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute. 1995. The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Addison Wesley Professional.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clark, R., Papajorgji, P. 2005. Model Driven Architecture for Software Application Generation.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cook, S., Daniels, J. 1994. Designing Object Systems – Object-Oriented Modeling with Syntropy. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D’Souza, D.F., Wills, A.C. 1999. Objects, Components, and Frameworks with UML: The CATALYSIS Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frankel, S.D. 2003. Model Driven Architecture. Applying MDA to Enterprise Computing. Wiley Publishing, Inc. OMG Press, Needham, MA.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gartner Symposium, March 2004. http://symwest.blog.gartner.com.
  8. 8.
    Gartner, Inc. http://www.gartner.com
  9. 9.
    Hay, D.C. 2003. Requirements Analysis: From Business Views to Architecture. Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jazayeri, M., Ran, A., Van Der Linden, F. 2000. Software Architecture for Product Families: Principle and Practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones, C. 1996. Patterns of Software Systems Failure and Success. International Thompson Computer Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones J.W., Keating, B.A., Porter, C. 2001. Approaches to modular model development. Agricultural Systems 70, 421–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Kraalingen. D.W.G. 1995. The FSE system for crop simulation, version 2.1. Quantitative Approaches in Systems Analysis Report no. 1. AB/DLO, PE, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kleppe, A., Warmer, J., Bast, W. 2003. MDA Explained. The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krill P. 2002. Sun hails open-source meta data repository. http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/05/07/020507hnnetbeans.html.
  16. 16.
    McNeile, A. 2003. MDA: The vision with the hole. http://www.metamaxim.com
  17. 17.
    McNeile, A., Simons, N. 2004. Methods of Behaviour Modelling. A Commentary on Behavior Modelling Techniques for MDA. Metamaxim Ltd.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mellor, J.S., Balcer J.M. 2002. Executable UML A foundation for Model-driven Architecture. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meyer, B. 1988. Object-Oriented Software Construction. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miller, J., Mukerj, J. (Eds). 2003. MDA Guide Version 1.0.1. Document Number omg/2003-06-01. Object Modeling Group.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group (OMG). http://omg.org/.
  22. 22.
    OMG Model Driven Architecture: How Systems Will be Built. http//omg.org/mda/.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Papajorgji, P., Beck, W.B., Braga, J.L. 2004. An architecture for developing service-oriented and component-based environmental models. Ecological Modelling 179/1, 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Papajorgji, P., Shatar, T. 2004. Using the Unified Modelling Language to develop soil water-balance and irrigation-scheduling models. Environmental Modelling & Software 19, 451e459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Papajorgji, P. 2005. A plug and play approach for developing environmental models. Environmental Modelling & Software 20, 1353e1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Papajorgji, P., Pardalos, P. 2005. Software Engineering Techniques Applied to Agricultural Systems: An Object-Oriented and UML Approach. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Porter, C.H., Braga, R., Jones, J.W. 1999. Research Report No. 99-0701. Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosenberg, D., Scott, K. 1999. Use Case Driven Object Modelling with UML: A Practical Approach. Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sommerville, I., Sawyer, P. 1997. Requirements Engineering: A Good Practise Guide. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Soley, R. 2000. Model driven Architecture. White paper draft 3.2. http://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/omg/00-11-05.pdf.
  31. 31.
    Soley, R. 2002. Presentation: MDA: An introduction. http://omg.org/mda/presentations.htm.
  32. 32.
    Starr, L. 2002. Executable UML: How to Build Class Models. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Taivalsaari, A. 1996. On the notion of inheritance. ACM Computing Surveys 28 (3).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Walden, K. Nerson, J-M. 1995. Seamless Object-Oriented Software Architecture: Analysis and Design of Reliable Systems. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A. 1999. The Object Constraint Language Precise Modelling with UML. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wordsworth, J. 1992. Software Development with Z. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zeichick, A. 2002. Modelling Usage Low; Developers Confused About UML 2.0, MDA. SDTimes. 58 (July 15), 1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IFAS Information Technology OfficeUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations