Advertisement

From Analysis Model to Software Architecture: A PIM2PIM Mapping

  • Jorge Enrique Pérez-Martínez
  • Almudena Sierra-Alonso
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4066)

Abstract

To our knowledge, no current software development methodology explicitly describes how to transit from the analysis model to the software architecture of the application. This paper presents a method to derive the software architecture of a system from its analysis model. To do this, we are going to use MDA. Both the analysis model and the architectural model are PIMs described with UML 2. The model type mapping designed consists of several rules (expressed using OCL and natural language) that, when applied to the analysis artifacts, generate the software architecture of the application. Specifically the rules act on elements of the UML 2 metamodel (metamodel mapping). We have developed a tool (using Smalltalk) that permits the automatic application of these rules to an analysis model defined in RoseTM to generate the application architecture expressed in the architectural style C2.

Keywords

Unify Modeling Language Analysis Class Software Architecture Architectural Model Mapping Rule 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Beck, K.: Embracing change with extreme programming. IEEE Computer 32(10), 70–77 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D’Souza, D.F., Wills, A.C.: Objects, components, and frameworks with UML. The Catalysis approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Graham, I.M.: Process and product life cycles: OPEN’s version 2 life cycle model. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 13(1), 23–26, 39 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    IEEE, IEEE Std. 1074-1997. Standard for developing software life cycle process (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Institute for Software Research. University of California, Irvine, http://www.isr.uci.edu/projects/archstudio
  6. 6.
    Inverardi, P., Muccini, H.: Coordination models and software architectures in a unified software development process. [Internal Report 14/01. Universitá dell’Aquila, Italy] (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jacobson, I., Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J.: The unified software development process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Medvidovic, N.: Architecture-based specification-time software evolution (Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Irvine, 1999) (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mellor, S.J., Scott, K., Uhl, A., Weise, D.: MDA distilled: principles of model-driven architecture. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Object Management Group. MDA guide V1.0.1. Document number omg/2003-06-01 (June 12, 2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Object Management Group, Unified Modeling Language (UML) Specification: Infrastructure version 2.0. ptc/04-10-14. Finalized Convenience Document (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Object Management Group, Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Core Specification. ptc/04-10-15. OMG Available Specification (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Object Management Group, Unified Modeling Language: Diagram Interchange version 2.0. ptc/05-06-04. Convenience Document (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Object Management Group, OCL 2.0 Specification version 2.0. ptc/2005-06-06 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Object Management Group, Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure version 2.0. formal/05-07-04 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group, MOF QVT Final Adopted Specification. ptc/05-11-01 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pérez-Martínez, J.E., Sierra-Alonso, A.: UML 1.4 versus UML 2.0 as Languages to Describe Software Architectures. In: Oquendo, F., Warboys, B.C., Morrison, R. (eds.) EWSA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3047, pp. 88–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pérez-Martínez, J.E., Sierra-Alonso, A.: UML 2.0 can’t represent architectural connectors. In: 3rd Nordic Workshop on UML Software Modeling. Tampere, Finland (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shaw, M., Garlan, D.: Software architecture. Perspectives on an emerging discipline. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 7th edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jorge Enrique Pérez-Martínez
    • 1
  • Almudena Sierra-Alonso
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Informática AplicadaUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Escuela Politécnica SuperiorUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations