Service–Oriented Architecture Modeling: Bridging the Gap between Structure and Behavior

  • Mickael Clavreul
  • Sébastien Mosser
  • Mireille Blay–Fornarino
  • Robert B. France
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6981)

Abstract

Model–driven development of large-scale software systems is highly likely to produce models that describe the systems from many diverse perspectives using a variety of modeling languages. Checking and maintaining consistency of information captured in such multi-modeling environments is known to be challenging. In this paper we describe an approach to systematically synchronize multi–models. The approach specifically addresses the problem of synchronizing business processes and domain models in a Service-oriented Architecture development environment. In the approach, the human effort required to synchronize independently developed models is supplemented with significant automated support. This process is used to identify concept divergences, that is, a concept in one model which cannot be matched with concepts in the other model. We automate the propagation of divergence resolution decisions across the conflicting models. We illustrate the approach using models developed for a Car Crash Crisis Management System (CCCMS), a case study problem used to assess Aspect–oriented Modeling approaches.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anwar, A., Ebersold, S., Coulette, B., Nassar, M., Kriouile, A.: A Rule-Driven Approach for composing Viewpoint-oriented Models. Journal of Object Technology 9(2), 89–114 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Reducing accidental complexity in domain models. Software & Systems Modeling 7(3), 345–359 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barais, O., Klein, J., Baudry, B., Jackson, A., Clarke, S.: Composing Multi-view Aspect Models. In: Seventh International Conference on Composition-Based Software Systems, ICCBSS 2008, pp. 43–52. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barjis, J.: The importance of business process modeling in software systems design. Science of Computer Programming 71(1), 73–87 (2008)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clavreul, M., Barais, O., Jézéquel, J.M.: Integrating legacy systems with mde. In: ICSE 2010: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and ICSE Workshops, Cape Town, South Africa, vol. 2, pp. 69–78 (May 2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Lara, J., Guerra, E., Vangheluwe, H., de Lara, J., Guerra, E., Vangheluwe, H.: A Multi-View Component Modelling Language for Systems Design: Checking Consistency and Timing Constrains. In: Proceedings of the VMSIS 2005: 2005 Workshop on Visual Modeling for Software Intensive Systems, pp. 27–34 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Falleri, J.-R., Huchard, M., Lafourcade, M., Nebut, C.: Metamodel Matching for Automatic Model Transformation Generation. In: Busch, C., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 326–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    France, R., Fleurey, F., Reddy, R., Baudry, B., Ghosh, S.: Providing support for model composition in metamodels. In: 11th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2007, p. 253 (October 2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Katz, S., Mezini, M., Kienzle, J. (eds.): Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development VII. LNCS, vol. 6210. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kerievsky, J.: Refactoring to Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kienzle, J., Guelfi, N., Mustafiz, S.: Crisis management systems: A case study for aspect-oriented modeling. In: T. Aspect-Oriented Software Development [9], pp. 1–22Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mäder, P., Gotel, O., Philippow, I.: Rule-Based Maintenance of Post-Requirements Traceability Relations. In: 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering, RE 2008, pp. 23–32. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mens, T., Taentzer, G., Runge, O.: Analysing Refactoring Dependencies Using Graph Transformation. Software and Systems Modeling 6(3), 269–285 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mosser, S.: Behavioral Compositions in Service-Oriented Architecture. Ph.D. thesis, Université Nice - Sophia Antipolis, ED STIC, Nice, France (October 2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mosser, S., Blay-Fornarino, M., France, R.: Workflow design using fragment composition - crisis management system design through adore. In: T. Aspect-Oriented Software Development [9], pp. 200–233Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S., Zave, P.: Matching and Merging of Statecharts Specifications. In: ICSE 2007: Proceedings of the 29th international conference on Software Engineering, pp. 54–64. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: Prompt: Algorithm and tool for automated ontology merging and alignment. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp. 450–455 (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stickel, M.E.: A Unification Algorithm for Associative-Commutative Functions. J. ACM 28, 423–434 (1981)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Der Straeten, R., Mens, T., Simmonds, J., Jonckers, V.: Using description logic to maintain consistency between UML models. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 326–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mickael Clavreul
    • 1
  • Sébastien Mosser
    • 2
  • Mireille Blay–Fornarino
    • 3
  • Robert B. France
    • 4
  1. 1.INRIARennesFrance
  2. 2.INRIA Lille–Nord Europe, LIFL (UMR CNRS 8070), Univ. Lille 1France
  3. 3.I3S (UMR CNRS 6070), Université NiceSophia AntipolisFrance
  4. 4.Colorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations