Advertisement

Transformation Laws for UML-RT

  • Rodrigo Ramos
  • Augusto Sampaio
  • Alexandre Mota
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4037)

Abstract

With model-driven development being on the verge of becoming an industrial standard, the need for systematic development strategies based on safe model transformations is a demand. Transformations must take into account changes in both behavioural and structural diagrams. In this paper, we present a set of transformation laws that aims to systematise the evolution of semantically well-defined UML-RT models, with preservation of both static and dynamic aspects. The proposed laws support the transformation of initial abstract analysis models into concrete design models. Furthermore, we show the seamless application of the laws through design activities of the Rational Unified Process in the development of a case study. Soundness and completeness of the laws are briefly addressed.

Keywords

Formal Semantic Transportation Agent Free Type Single Capsule Case View 
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.
    Kent, S.: Model driven engineering. In: Butler, M., Petre, L., Sere, K. (eds.) IFM 2002. LNCS, vol. 2335, pp. 286–298. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fowler, M.: Refactoring-Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morgan, C.: Programming From Specifications, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Booch, G., Jacobson, I., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Selic, B., Rumbaugh, J.: Using UML For Modeling Complex RealTime Systems. Rational Software Corporation (1998), available at: http://www.rational.com
  6. 6.
    Ramos, R., Sampaio, A., Mota, A.: A Semantics for UML-RT Active Classes via Mapping into Circus. In: Steffen, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) FMOODS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3535, pp. 99–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sampaio, A., Mota, A., Ramos, R.: Class and Capsule Refinement in UML For Real Time. In: Proc. WMF 2003. ENTCS, vol. 95, pp. 23–51. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evans, A., France, R., Lano, K., Rumpe, B.: The UML as a Formal Modeling Notation. In: Proc. of the UML Conference. LNCS, Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lano, K., Bicarregui, J.: Semantics and Transformations For UML Models. In: Proc. of the UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1618, pp. 107–119. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meng, S., Barbosa, L.S., Naixiao, Z.: On refinement of software architectures. In: Van Hung, D., Wirsing, M. (eds.) ICTAC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3722, pp. 469–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kruchten, P.: Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, The, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    OMG: UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification, OMG Adopted Specification (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fecher, H., Schönborn, J., Kyas, M., de Roever, W.P.: 29 New Unclarities in the Semantics of UML 2.0 State Machines. In: Lau, K.-K., Banach, R. (eds.) ICFEM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3785, pp. 52–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sampaio, A., Woodcock, J., Cavalcanti, A.: Refinement in Circus. In: Eriksson, L.-H., Lindsay, P.A. (eds.) FME 2002. LNCS, vol. 2391, pp. 451–470. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoare, C.A.R., He, J.: Unifying Theories of Programming. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.4. Object Management Group (2001), Available at: http://www.omg.org/uml
  17. 17.
    Ramos, R.: Desenvolvimento Rigoroso com UML-RT. Master’s thesis, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Borba, P., Sampaio, A., Cavalcanti, A., Cornélio, M.: Algebraic Reasoning for Object-Oriented Programming. Science of Computer Programming 52 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang, L., Xie, D., Zou, W.: Viewing Use Cases As Active Objects. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 26, 44–48 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wehrheim, H.: Specification of an Automatic Manufacturing System: A Case Study in Using Integrated Formal Methods. In: Maibaum, T.S.E. (ed.) ETAPS 2000 and FASE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1783, pp. 334–348. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sunyé, G., Pollet, D., Traon, Y.L., Jézéquel, J.M.: Refactoring UML Models. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 134–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gheyi, R., Borba, P.: Refactoring Alloy Specifications. In: Proc. WMF 2003. ENTCS, vol. 95, pp. 227–243. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sandner, R.: Developing Distributed Systems Step By Step With UML-RT. In: Proc. of the VVVNS Workshop, Universität Münster (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Engels, G., Heckel, R., Küster, J.M., Groenewegen, L.: Consistency-Preserving Model Evolution Through Transformations. In: Jézéquel, J.-M., Hussmann, H., Cook, S. (eds.) UML 2002. LNCS, vol. 2460, pp. 212–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodrigo Ramos
    • 1
  • Augusto Sampaio
    • 1
  • Alexandre Mota
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for InformaticsFederal University of PernambucoRecifeBrazil

Personalised recommendations