Visual Software Modeling with Rules

Chapter
Part of the Intelligent Systems Reference Library book series (ISRL, volume 130)

Abstract

In the last decades visual design methods have been gaining popularity and importance in Software Engineering. When it comes to practical software design, UML is de facto the standard for modeling software applications. Today, UML diagrams are typically not detailed enough to describe every aspect of the modeled system. This chapter concerns practical design issues of rule-based models integrated with business applications built using the Model-View-Controller architectural pattern and designed in UML. The main idea consists in the introduction of a visual UML representation for business rules modeling the application logic. A complete bidirectional translation between XTT and the UML representation is presented. It preserves the semantics of XTT in an UML-friendly fashion, allowing UML designers to approach the XTT-based rule logic model in a unified way. The implementation of practical translators is described, and the evaluation of this approach is given.

References

  1. 1.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering. International computer science, 7th edn. Pearson Education Limited, Boston (2004)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language version 2.1.2. infrastructure. specification. Technical Report formal/2007-11-04, Object Management Group, November 2007. http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2007-11-04.pdf
  3. 3.
    Hunt, J.: Guide to the Unified Process Featuring UML. Java and design patterns. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Object Management Group: Object Constraint Language Version 2.0. Technical Report, OMG, May 2006Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burbeck, S.: Applications programming in Smalltalk-80(TM): How to use Model-View-Controller (MVC). Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ammann, P., Offutt, J.: Introduction to Software Testing. Cambridge University Press (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xu, D., Xu, W., Wong, W.E.: Automated test code generation from class state models. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 19(4), 599–623 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    OMG: Meta object facility (MOF) version 2.0, core specification. Technical Report formal/2006-01-01, Object Management Group, January 2006. http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2006-01-01.pdf
  9. 9.
    Wan-Kadir, W.M.N., Loucopoulos, P.: Relating evolving business rules to software design. J. Syst. Arch. 50, 367–382 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nalepa, G.J., Kluza, K.: UML representation proposal for XTT rule design method. In: Nalepa, G.J., Baumeister, J. (eds.) 4th Workshop on Knowledge Engineering and Software Engineering (KESE2008) at the 32nd German conference on Artificial Intelligence: September 23, 2008, pp. 31–42. Kaiserslautern, Germany, Kaiserslautern, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kluza, K., Nalepa, G.J.: Metody i narzędzia wizualnego projektowania reguł decyzyjnych. In: Grzech, A., et al. (eds.): Inżynieria Wiedzy i Systemy Ekspertowe. Problemy Współczesnej Nauki, Teoria i Zastosowania. Informatyka, Warszawa, Akademicka Oficyna Wydawnicza EXIT , pp. 197–208 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kluza, K., Nalepa, G.J.: Analysis of UML representation for XTT and ARD rule design methods. Technical Report CSLTR 5/2009, AGH University of Science and Technology (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) version 2.2. superstructure. Technical Report formal/2009-02-02, Object Management Group, February 2009Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nalepa, G.J., Wojnicki, I.: Using UML for knowledge engineering – a critical overview. In Baumeister, J., Seipel, D. (eds.): 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Engineering and Software Engineering (KESE 2007) at the 30th Annual German conference on Artificial intelligence: September 10, 2007, pp. 37–46. Osnabrück, Germany, September 2007Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    OMG: MOF 2.0/XMI mapping version 2.1. specification. Technical Report formal/2005-09-01, Object Management Group, September 2005. http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2005-09-01.pdf
  16. 16.
    Daum, B., Merten, U.: System Architecture with XML. Morgan Kaufmann (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gerber, A., Lawley, M., Raymond, K., Steel, J., Wood, A.: Transformation: The missing link of MDA. In: Graph transformation: first international conference, ICGT 2002, pp. 252–265, Barcelona, Spain (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fong, J., Shiu, H., Wong, J.: Methodology for data conversion from xml documents to relations using extensible stylesheet language transformation. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 19(2), 249–281 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AGH University of Science and TechnologyKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations