Advertisement

Augmenting UML Models for Composition Conflict Analysis

  • Andreas Leicher
  • Jörn Guy Süß
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3442)

Abstract

Component reuse is inhibited by two factors: Lack of an adequate modeling representation of components and lack of a method to predict properties of a composition of application components. In this paper, we propose a framework for conflict identification. The framework is primarily based on a taxonomy describing communication and technology related properties. Conflict identification is based on inference rules. Furthermore, we aim to integrate conflict reasoning in the software development process. We will show that the Unified Modeling Language and the Resource Description Framework can be combined to provide a solution to the representation problems, without resorting to extension mechanisms, and without limiting to a specific component platform. As a real life example, we model the connection of an .Net Serviced Component to an Enterprise Java Bean as part of a mortgage bank’s enterprise architecture and prove its viability.

Keywords

Resource Description Framework Software Development Process Architectural Style Application Component Uniform Resource Locator 
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.
    Allen, R., Garlan, D.: A formal basis for architectural connection. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 6(3), 213–249 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R.: Software Architecture in Practice. Software Engineering Institute. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998) ISBN 0-201-19930-0 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., Masinter, L.: RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic syntax, Status: DRAFT STANDARD (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berners-Lee, T.: Notation 3 - ideas about web architecture (2001), http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3.html
  5. 5.
    Billig, A.: ODIS - Ein Domänenrepository auf der Basis von Semantic Web Technologien. In: Tagungsband der Berliner XML Tage. XML-Clearinghouse (2003), http://www.isst.fhg.de/~abillig/Odis/xsw2003
  6. 6.
    Billig, A., Busse, S., Leicher, A., Süß, J.G.: Platform independent model transformation based on TRIPLE. In: Jacobsen, H.-A. (ed.) Middleware 2004. LNCS, vol. 3231, pp. 493–511. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brooks Jr., F.P.: The Mythical Man Month, anniversary edition (1995) ISBN: 0-201-83595-9Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carroll, J.J., Dickinson, I., Dollin, C., Reynolds, D., Seaborne, A., Wilkinson, K.: Jena: Implementing the semantic web recommendations. Technical Report HPL-2003-146, Hewlett Packard Laboratories,  24 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis, L., Flagg, D., Gamble, R., Karatas, C.: Classifying interoperability conflicts. In: Weng, T., Erdogmus, H. (eds.) ICCBSS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2580, pp. 62–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis, L., Gamble, R., Payton, J.: The impact of component architectures on interoperability. Journal of Systems and Software 61(1), 31–45 (2002); based on the Technical Report UTULSA-MCS-99-30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gädicke, J.: Metadatengestützte analyse der kommunikationsfähigkeit von enterprise java beans und.net. Master’s thesis, TU Berlin, German (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kelkar, A., Gamble, R.F.: Understanding the architectural characteristics behind middleware choices. In: 1st International Conference in Information Reuse and Integration (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. Journal of the ACM 42, 741–843 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McIlroy, M.D.: Mass produced software components. In: Naur, P., Randel, B. (eds.) NATO Conference on Software Engineering, October 1968. NATO Science Commitee (1968)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mehta, N.R.: Software connectors: A taxonomy approach. In: Workshop on Evaluating Software Architectural Solutions 2000. Institute for Software Research University of California, Irvine (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mehta, N.R., Medvidovic, N.: Understanding software connector compatibilites using a connector taxonomy. In: Proceedings of First Workshop on Software Design and Architecture (SoDA 2002), Bangalore, India (December 2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mehta, N.R., Medvidovic, N., Phadke, S.: Towards a taxonomy of software connectors. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software engineering, pp. 178–187 (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Object Management Group (OMG). Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.3 (March 2000), http://cgi.omg.org/docs/formal/00-03-01.pdf
  19. 19.
    Shaw, M., Clements, P.C.: A field guide to boxology: Preliminary classification of architectural styles for software systems. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Computer Software and Applications Conference, pp. 6–13. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shaw, M., Garlan, D.: Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, PH (April 1996) ISBN 0131829572Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sintek, M., Decker, S.: TRIPLE–A query, inference, and transformation language for the semantic web. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, p. 364. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Süß, J.G., Leicher, A., Weber, H., Kutsche, R.-D.: Model-centric engineering with the evolution and validation environment. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 31–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    World Wide Web Consortium. Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification, statut: W3C Recommandation, errata REC-rdf-syntax-19990222 (1999), http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/
  24. 24.
    Yakimovich, D., Bieman, J.M., Basili, V.R.: Software architecture classification for estimating the cost of cots integration. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Software engineering, pp. 296–302. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Leicher
    • 1
  • Jörn Guy Süß
    • 1
  1. 1.Computergestützte InformationsSysteme (CIS)Technische Universität BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations