Uses and Abuses of the Stereotype Mechanism in UML 1.x and 2.0

  • B. Henderson-Sellers
  • C. Gonzalez-Perez
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4199)


Stereotypes were introduced into the UML in order to offer extensibility to the basic metamodel structure by the user and without actually modifying the metamodel. In UML version 1.x, this was accomplished by means of permitting virtual subtyping in the metamodel. However, this facility led many to misuse stereotypes, particularly in places where regular domain-level modelling would be more appropriate. In version 2.0 of the UML, the portion of the metamodel pertaining to stereotypes was drastically revised. The resulting mechanism is reviewed here and compared with that of version 1.x. From a set theory point of view, the new (2.0) metamodel is unfortunately untenable and the examples used in the OMG documentation unconvincing. This paper outlines the issues and suggests some possible steps to improve the UML 2.0 stereotype theory and practice.


Secondary Classification Class Interface Direct Instance Enterprise Distribute Object Computing Stereotype Theory 
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.
    Monarchi, D., Booch, G., Henderson-Sellers, B., Jacobson, I., Mellor, S., Rumbaugh, J., Wirfs-Brock, R.: Methodology standards: help or hindrance? In: Procs. Ninth Annual OOPSLA Conference, ACM SIGPLAN, vol. 29(10), pp. 223–228 (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: Methodologies - frameworks for OO success. American Programmer 7(10), 2–11 (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Rearchitecting the UML infrastructure. ACM Trans. Modeling and Computer Simulation 12(4), 290–321 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wirfs-Brock, R., Wilkerson, B., Wiener, L.: Responsibility-driven design: adding to your conceptual toolkit. ROAD 1(2), 27–34 (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Atkinson, C., Firesmith, D.G.: Viewing the OML as a variant of the UML. In: France, R.B., Rumpe, B. (eds.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 49–66. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gogolla, M., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Analysis of UML stereotypes within the UML metamodel. In: Jézéquel, J.-M., Hussmann, H., Cook, S. (eds.) UML 2002. LNCS, vol. 2460, pp. 84–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T.: Meta-level independent modelling. In: International Workshop on Model Engineering at 14th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Atkinson, C.: Metamodelling for distributed object environments. In: Procs. First International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOC 1997), Brisbane, Australia (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T., Henderson-Sellers, B.: 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
  10. 10.
    Warmer, J.M., Kleppe, A.: The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modeling with UML. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feinberg, N., Keene, S.E., Mathews, R.O., Withington, P.T.: DylanTM Programming. Addison-Wesley Longman, Amsterdam (1997), Section 3.2.1Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Description of Eiffel object model (accessed on June 14, 2006) at
  13. 13.
    Evans, A., Kent, S.: Core meta-modelling semantics of UML: the pUML approach. In: France, R.B., Rumpe, B. (eds.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 141–155. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Soley, R.M., Stone, C.M.: Object Management Architecture Guide, Object Management Group document 97-05-05 (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Atkinson, C., Kühne, T., Henderson-Sellers, B.: Systematic stereotype usage. Software and System Modelling 2(3), 153–163 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, Version 2.0, formal/05-07-04, p. 709 (2005) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Steimann, F., Kühne, T.: A radical reduction of UML’s core semantics. In: Jézéquel, J.-M., Hussmann, H., Cook, S. (eds.) UML 2002. LNCS, vol. 2460, pp. 34–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    OMG: RTF/FTF Report of the UML 2 Revision Task Force (Revision 2.1), document ptc/2006-01-01 January 20, 2006, p. 802 (2006) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Henderson-Sellers
    • 1
  • C. Gonzalez-Perez
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Information TechnologyUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations