Extending Profiles with Stereotypes for Composite Concepts

  • Dick Quartel
  • Remco Dijkman
  • Marten van Sinderen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3713)


This paper proposes an extension of the UML 2.0 profiling mechanism. This extension facilitates a language designer to introduce composite concepts as separate conceptual and notational elements in a modelling language. Composite concepts are compositions of existing concepts. To facilitate the introduction of composite concepts, the notion of stereotype is extended. This extension defines how a composite concept can be specified and added to a language’s metamodel, without modifying the existing metamodel. From the definition of the stereotype, rules can be derived for transforming a language element that represents a composite concept into a composition of language elements that represent the concepts that constitute the composite. Such a transformation facilitates tool developers to introduce tool support for composite concepts, e.g., by re-using existing tools that support the constituent concepts. To illustrate our ideas, example definitions of stereotypes and transformations for composite concepts are presented.


Structure Concept Object Constraint Language Context Relation Language Developer Language Element 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Strict Profiles: Why and How. In: Evans, A., Kent, S., Selic, B. (eds.) UML 2000. LNCS, vol. 1939, pp. 309–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, C., et al.: To Meta or Not to Meta – That is the Question. Journal of Object Oriented Programming 13(8), 32–35 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkinsion, C., et al.: Stereotypical Encounters of the Third Kind. In: Jézéquel, J.-M., Hussmann, H., Cook, S. (eds.) UML 2002. LNCS, vol. 2460, pp. 100–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berner, S., et al.: A Classification of Stereotypes for Object-Oriented Modeling Languages. In: France, R.B., Rumpe, B. (eds.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 249–264. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dijkman, R.M., et al.: An Approach to Relate Viewpoints and Modeling Languages. In: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing (EDOC) Conference, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 14–27 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evans, A., et al.: A unified superstructure for UML. Journal of Object Technology 4(1), 165–181 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Jiang, Y., et al.: On the Classification of UML’s Meta Model Extension Mechanism. In: Baar, T., Strohmeier, A., Moreira, A., Mellor, S.J. (eds.) UML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3273, pp. 54–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patrascoiu, O.: YATL: Yet Another Transformation Language. In: Proceedings of the 1st European MDA Workshop, MDA-IA, January 2004, pp. 83–90. University of Twente, the Netherlands (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    OMG. UML 2.0 Infrastructure Specification. OMG Adopted Specification ptc/03-09-12 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    OMG. UML 2.0 OCL Specification. OMG Adopted Specification ptc/03-10-14 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quartel, D., et al.: Methodological support for service-oriented design with ISDL. In: Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Service Oriented Computing, New York City, NY, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Quartel, D., et al.: On architectural support for behavior refinement in distributed systems design. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science 6(1) (March 2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quartel, D., et al.: On the role of basic design concepts in behaviour structuring. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 29, 413–436 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schleicher, A., Westfechtel, B.: Beyond Stereotyping: Metamodeling Approaches for the UML. In: Proceedings of HICSS 34, pp. 3051–3060 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dick Quartel
    • 1
  • Remco Dijkman
    • 1
  • Marten van Sinderen
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Telematics and Information TechnologyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations