Advertisement

Composing Goal and Scenario Models with the Aspect-Oriented User Requirements Notation Based on Syntax and Semantics

  • Gunter Mussbacher
  • Daniel Amyot
  • Jon Whittle
Chapter

Abstract

The Aspect-oriented User Requirements Notation (AoURN) combines goal-oriented, scenario-based, and aspect-oriented concepts into a framework for requirements engineering activities. AoURN’s approach to composition takes the structure of AoURN’s goal and scenario notations into account. Composition is hence tailored to these two notations to balance reusability of the aspect specification and the amount of duplication it requires. Furthermore, the composition mechanism of AoURN supports advanced interleaved composition rules in addition to the traditional before, after, and around composition rules. Interleaved composition allows two scenarios to be combined without losing sight of the overall behavior of each individual scenario. Finally, AoURN employs an enhanced composition mechanism based on semantic equivalences in each of its two sub-notations. The enhanced composition mechanism ensures that a certain class of refactoring operations may be performed on an AoURN model without interfering with the desired aspect composition. An example based on a common case study illustrates the usage of interleaved and semantics-based composition for AoURN’s scenario model.

Keywords

Composition Rule Composition Mechanism Aspect Marker Goal Graph Semantic Equivalence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    G. Mussbacher, Aspect-oriented user requirements notation, Ph.D. thesis, School of Information Technology and Engineering, University of Ottawa, Canada, 2010Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ITU-T (2012). User Requirements Notation (URN) – Language definition, ITU-T Recommendation Z.151 (10/12), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Z.151/en. Accessed 22 Oct 2012
  3. 3.
    M. Braem, K. Gybels, A. Kellens, W. Vanderperren, Inducing evolution-robust pointcuts, in Second International ERCIM Workshop on Software Evolution (EVOL 2006), Lille, France, 2006Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Kellens, K. Gybels, J. Brichau, K. Mens, A model-driven pointcut language for more robust pointcuts, in Workshop on Software Engineering Properties of Languages for Aspect Technology (SPLAT! 2006), Bonn, Germany, 2006Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Koppen, M. Stoerzer, Pcdiff: attacking the fragile pointcut problem, in First European Interactive Workshop on Aspects in Software (EIWAS'04), Berlin, Germany, 2004Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Mussbacher, D. Amyot, J. Whittle, Refactoring-safe modeling of aspect-oriented scenarios, in Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, ed. by A. Schürr, B. Selic. LNCS, vol. 5795 (Springer, 2009), pp. 286–300. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04425-0_21
  7. 7.
    J. Kienzle, N. Guelfi, S. Mustafiz, Crisis management systems: a case study for aspect-oriented modeling, in Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development VII (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2010), pp. 1–22. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-16086-8_1
  8. 8.
    J. Klein, L. Hélouët, J.M. Jézéquel, Semantic-based weaving of scenarios, in Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD’06), Bonn, Germany, 2006, pp. 27–38. doi: 10.1145/1119655.1119662
  9. 9.
    jUCMNav website (2012), http://jucmnav.softwareengineering.ca/jucmnav. Accessed 22 Oct 2012
  10. 10.
    J. Araújo, A. Moreira, An aspectual use case driven approach, in VIII Jornadas de Ingeniería de Software y Bases de Datos (JISBD 2003), Alicante, Spain, 2003, pp. 463–468Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    I. Jacobson, P.-W. Ng, Aspect-Oriented Software Development with Use Cases (Addison-Wesley, New York, NY, 2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Rashid, A. Moreira, J. Araújo, Modularisation and composition of aspectual requirements, in 2nd International Conference on Aspect Oriented Software Development (AOSD), Boston, MA, 2003, pp. 11–20. doi: 10.1145/643603.643605
  13. 13.
    M. Lencastre, J. Araújo, A. Moreira, J. Castro, Towards aspectual problem frames: an example. Expert Syst. J. 25(1), 74–86 (2008). doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0394.2008.00453.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Clarke, E. Baniassad, Aspect-Oriented Analysis and Design: The Theme Approach (Addison Wesley, New York, NY, 2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Whittle, P. Jayaraman, A. Elkhodary, A. Moreira, J. Araújo, MATA: a unified approach for composing UML aspect models based on graph transformation, in Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development VI (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2009), pp. 191–237. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-03764-1_6
  16. 16.
    R. Chitchyan, A. Rashid, P. Rayson, R. Waters, Semantics-based composition for aspect-oriented requirements engineering, in Aspect-Oriented Software Development (AOSD’07), Vancouver, BC, 2007, pp. 36–48. doi: 10.1145/1218563.1218569
  17. 17.
    T. Cottenier, A. van den Berg, T. Elrad, Joinpoint inference from behavioral specification to implementation, in ECOOP 2007, ed. by E. Ernst. LNCS, vol. 4609 (Springer, 2007), pp. 476–500. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-73589-2_23
  18. 18.
    J. Zhang, T. Cottenier, A. van den Berg, J. Gray, Aspect composition in the Motorola aspect-oriented modeling weaver. J. Object Technol. 6(7), 89–108 (2007). doi: 10.5381/jot.2007.6.7.a4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    L.M.J. Bergmans, Towards detection of semantic conflicts between crosscutting concerns, in Workshop on Analysis of Aspect-Oriented Software(AAOS) at ECOOP 2003, Darmstadt, Germany, 2003Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Mussbacher, J. Whittle, D. Amyot, Modeling and detecting semantic-based interactions in aspect-oriented scenarios. Requirements Eng. J. 15(2), 197–214 (2010). doi: 10.1007/s00766-010-0098-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. Mussbacher, D. Barone, D. Amyot, Towards a taxonomy of syntactic and semantic matching mechanisms for aspect-oriented modeling, in 6th Workshop on System Analysis and Modelling (SAM 2010), Oslo, Norway, 2010, pp. 241–256. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21652-7_15
  22. 22.
    G. Mussbacher, D. Amyot, J. Araújo, A. Moreira, Requirements modeling with the aspect-oriented user requirements notation (AoURN): a case study, in Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development VII (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2010), pp. 23–68. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-16086-8_2
  23. 23.
    G. Mussbacher, bCMS case study: AoURN, in ReMoDD, 2011, http://www.cs.colostate.edu/remodd/v1/content/bcms-case-study-aourn. Accessed 22 Oct 2012

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE)McGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.EECS, University of OttawaOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Department of Computing, InfoLab21Lancaster UniversityBailrigg, LancasterUK

Personalised recommendations