Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptual Modeling of Structure and Behavior with UML – The Top Level Object-Oriented Framework (TLOOF) Approach

  • Conference paper
Conceptual Modeling – ER 2005 (ER 2005)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 3716))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In the last decade UML has emerged as the standard object-oriented conceptual modeling language. Since UML is a combination of previous languages, such as Booch, OMT, Statecharts, etc., the creation of multi-views within UML was unavoidable. These views, which represent different aspects of system structure and behavior, overlap, raising consistency and integration problems. Moreover, the object-oriented nature of UML sets the ground for several behavioral views in UML, each of which is a different alternative for representing behavior. In this paper I suggest a Top-Level Object-Oriented Framework (TLOOF) for UML models. This framework, which serves as the glue of use case, class, and interaction diagrams, enables changing the refinement level of a model without losing the comprehension of the system as a whole and without creating contradictions among the mentioned structural and behavioral views. Furthermore, the suggested framework does not add new classifiers to the UML metamodel, hence, it does not complicate UML.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ambler, S.W.: How the UML Models Fit Together. Software Development Online: Focus on UML (2000), http://www.sdmagazine.com/documents/s=815/sdm0003z/0003z1.htm

  2. Baresi, L., Pezze, M.: On Formalizing UML with High-Level Petri Nets. In: Agha, G.A., De Cindio, F., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) APN 2001. LNCS, vol. 2001, pp. 276–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Bowman, H., Steen, M., Boiten, E.A., Derrick, J.: A Formal Framework for Viewpoint Consistency. Formal Methods in System Design 21(2), 111–166 (2002)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bodeveix, J.P., Millan, T., Percebois, C., Le Camus, C., Bazex, P., Feraud, L., Sobek, R.: Extending OCL for Verifying UML Models Consistency. In: Workshop on Consistency Problems in UML-based Software Development, 5th International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language- the Language and its applications (UML 2002), Dresden, Germany, pp. 75–90 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chiorean, D., Pasca, M., Carcu, A., Botiza, C., Moldovan, S.: Ensuring UML models consistency using the OCL Environment. In: Workshop on OCL 2.0 - Industry standard or scientific playground? 6th International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language - the Language and its applications (UML 2003), San Francisco (2003), http://i11www.ira.uka.de/~baar/oclworkshopUml03/papers/06_ensuring_uml_model_consistency.pdf

  6. Dori, D.: Object-Process Methodology - A Holistic Systems Paradigm. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Engels, G., Hausmann, J.H., Heckel, R., Sauer, S.: Testing the Consistency of Dynamic UML Diagrams. In: Proc. 6th International Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology (IDPT 2002), Pasadena CA (2002), http://www.uni-paderborn.de/cs/ag-engels/Papers/2002/EngelsHHS-IDPT02.pdf

  8. Engels, G., Kuster, J.M., Groenewegen, L., Heckel, R.: A Methodology for Specifying and Analyzing Consistency of Object-Oriented Behavioral Models. In: Gruhn, V. (ed.) Proceedings of the 8th European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC) and 9th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE-9), pp. 186–195. ACM Press, Vienna Austria (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fowler, M., Scott, K.: UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gomaa, H., Wijesekera, D.: Consistency in Multiple-View UML Models: A Case Study. In: Workshop on Consistency Problems in UML-based Software Development II, 6th International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language- the Language and its applications (UML 2003), San Francisco, pp. 1–8 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Große-Rhode, M.: Integrating Semantics for Object-Oriented System Models. In: Orejas, F., Spirakis, P.G., van Leeuwen, J. (eds.) ICALP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2076, pp. 40–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Hahn, J., Kim, J.: Why Are Some Diagrams Easier to Work With? Effects of Diagrammatic Representation on the Cognitive Integration Process of Systems Analysis and Design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 6(3), 181–213 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Henderson-Sellers, B.: OO Diagram Connectivity. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 11(7), 60–68 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mens, T., Van Der Straeten, R., Simmonds, J.: Maintaining Consistency between UML Models Using Description Logic. In: Workshop on Consistency Problems in UML-based Software Development II, 6th International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language- the Language and its applications (UML 2003), San Francisco, pp. 71–77 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nentwich, C., Emmerich, W., Finkelstein, A., Ellmer, E.: Flexible consistency checking. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodologies 12(1), 28–63 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language Specification – version 1.4, ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/formal/01-09-67.pdf

  17. Object Management Group. UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF convenience document, http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/04-10-02.zip

  18. Otero, M.C., Dolado, J.J.: An Initial Experimental Assessment of the Dynamic Modeling in UML. Empirical Software Engineering 7, 27–47 (2002)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Paige, R., Ostroff, J.: The Single Model Principle. Journal of Object Technology 1(5), 63–81 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Peleg, M., Dori, D.: The Model Multiplicity Problem: Experimenting with Real-Time Specification Methods. IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering 26(8), 742–759 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rasch, H., Wehrheim, H.: Consistency Between UML Classes and Associated State Machines. In: Workshop on Consistency Problems in UML-based Software Development, 5th International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language- the Language and its applications (UML 2002), Dresden, Germany, pp. 46–60 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Reinhartz-Berger, I., Dori, D.: OPM vs. UML – Experimenting Comprehension and Construction of Web Application Models. Empirical Software Engineering (EMSE) 10(1), 57–80 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Scott, K., Rosenberg, D.: Successful Robustness Analysis. Software Development Online: The lifecycle starts here (2001), http://pyre.third-bit.com/helium/extern/rosenberg04.pdf

  24. Tilley, S., Huang, S.: A qualitative assessment of the efficacy of UML diagrams as a form of graphical documentation in aiding program understanding. In: Proceedings of the 21st annual international conference on Documentation, San Francisco, CA, pp. 184–191 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tun, T., Bielkowicz, P.: A Critical Assessment of UML using an Evaluation Framework. In: 8th CAiSE/IFIP8.1 International Workshop on Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2003), pp. 29–37 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Synthesis of Behavioral Models from Scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 29(2), 99–115 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Haifa, Carmel Mountain, Haifa, 31905, Israel

    Iris Reinhartz-Berger

Authors
  1. Iris Reinhartz-Berger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Portland State University, 97207, Portland, OR

    Lois Delcambre

  2. Institute for Applied Informatics, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt, Austria

    Christian Kop  & Heinrich C. Mayr  & 

  3. Dept. of Information Engineering and Computer Science,  

    John Mylopoulos

  4. Department of Information Systems and Computation, Technical University of Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022, Valencia, Spain

    Oscar Pastor

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Reinhartz-Berger, I. (2005). Conceptual Modeling of Structure and Behavior with UML – The Top Level Object-Oriented Framework (TLOOF) Approach. In: Delcambre, L., Kop, C., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, O. (eds) Conceptual Modeling – ER 2005. ER 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3716. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11568322_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11568322_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-29389-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-32068-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation