Cited By
View all- de L. Xavier MFarias KBarbosa JGonçales LBishoff V(2019)UMLCollabProceedings of the XV Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems10.1145/3330204.3330239(1-8)Online publication date: 20-May-2019
Supporting the Composition of UML Component Diagrams
Authors: 
Guilherme Ermel, 
Kleinner Farias, Lucian José Gonçales, Vinicius BischoffAuthors Info & Claims
Guilherme Ermel, Kleinner Farias, Lucian José Gonçales, Vinicius BischoffAuthors Info & ClaimsArticle No.: 56, Pages 1 - 9
Abstract
Fast-changing business environments have become enterprise information systems more heterogeneous and complex. This extreme uncertainty leads to continuous development and integration of architecturally relevant components developed in parallel. In this context, the proper composition of such components is critical to reduce the development effort. However, the current composition tools are still considered imprecise and inflexible for this purpose. This article, therefore, proposes MoCoTo, a model composition tool to support the integration of UML component diagrams. It exploits equivalence relationships between the UML component elements to improve integration precision and accuracy. Developers and system analysts can benefit from using MoCoTo when evolving or maintaining architectural models of enterprise information systems. MoCoTo was implemented as an Eclipse platform plug-in. The tool was used to support the composition of architectural components in three realistic evolution scenarios of a Software Product Line. Our preliminary results indicated that MoCoTo was able to integrate architectural models represented with UML component diagrams. The metrics used to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed tool (i.e., precision, recall and F-measure) presented values higher than 0.6 in all evaluation scenarios.
References
[1]
M. Al-Khiaty and M. Ahmed. 2014. Similarity assessment of UML class diagrams using simulated annealing. In Software Engineering and Service Science (ICSESS), 2014 5th IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 19--23.
[2]
Y. Alotaibi and F. Liu. 2016. Survey of business process management: challenges and solutions. Enterprise Information Systems 11, 8 (2016), 1119--1153.
[3]
K. Altmanninger, M. Seidl, and M. Wimmer. 2009. A survey on model versioning approaches. International Journal of Web Information Systems 5, 3 (2009), 271--304.
[4]
M. Chaudron, W. Heijstek, and A. Nugroho. 2012. How effective is UML modelling? an empirical perspective on costs and benefits. Software and Systems Modelling 12 (2012), 571--580.
[5]
S. Clarke and R. Walker. 2001. Composition patterns: An approach to designing reusable aspects. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Software engineering. IEEE Computer Society, 5--14.
[6]
T. H. Cormen. 2009. Introduction to algorithms. MIT press.
[7]
Weber et al. 2016. Detecting Inconsistencies in Multi-view UML Models. International Journal of Computer Science and Software Engineering (IJCSSE) 5, 12 (December 2016), 260--264.
[8]
K. Farias. 2012. Empirical Evaluation of Effort on Composing Design Models. Ph.D. Dissertation. PUC-Rio, Brazil.
[9]
K. Farias, A. Garcia, J. Whittle, C. Chavez, and C. Lucena. 2015. Evaluating the effort of composing design models: a controlled experiment. Software & Systems Modeling 14, 4 (2015), 1349--1365.
[10]
K. Farias, A. Garcia, J. Whittle, and C. Lucena. 2013. Analyzing the Effort of Composing Design Models of Large-Scale Software in Industrial Case Studies. In 16th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. Miami, FL, USA, 639--655.
[11]
K. Farias, L. Gonçales, M. Scholl, T. Oliveira, and M. Veronez. 2015. Toward an Architecture for Model Composition Techniques. In 27th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. Pittsburgh, USA, 656--659.
[12]
K. Kang, S. Cohen, J. Hess, W. Novak, and A. Peterson. 1990. Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical Report. DTIC Document.
[13]
M. Kessentini, A. Ouni, P. Langer, M. Wimmer, and S. Bechikh. 2014. Search-based metamodel matching with structural and syntactic measures. Journal of Systems and Software 97 (2014), 1--14.
[14]
M. La Rosa, M. Dumas, R. Uba, and R. Dijkman. 2013. Business Process Model Merging: An Approach to Business Process Consolidation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 22, 2, Article 11 (March 2013), 42 pages.
[15]
K. Oliveira. 2008. Composição de UML Profiles. Master's thesis. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul.
[16]
OMG. 2017. Unified Modeling Language: Infrastructure, Version 2.5.1. Available: https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5.1/.
[17]
J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch. 2004. Unified modeling language reference manual, the. Pearson Higher Education.
[18]
C. N. SantAnna. 2018. On the modularity of aspect-oriented design: A concern-driven measurement approach. Ph.D. Dissertation. PUC-Rio, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
[19]
L. Tizzei, M. Dias, C. Rubira, A. Garcia, and J. Lee. 2011. Components Meet Aspects. Information and Software Technology 53 (2011), 121--136.
Index Terms
- Supporting the Composition of UML Component Diagrams
Recommendations
Describing Use-Case Relationships with Sequence Diagrams
One of the key tools of the unified modelling language for behaviour modelling is the use-case model. The behaviour of a use case can be described by means of interaction diagrams (sequence and collaboration diagrams), activity charts and state diagrams ...
UML Statechart Diagrams on the ADONIS Metamodeling Platform
The metamodeling platform ADONIS has originally been implemented for the use in business process management. Its method independency and extensive customization functionalities also allow for the application in many different other areas such as ...
UML + ROOM as a Standard ADL?
ICECCS '99: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer SystemsDesigning a software system's architecture properly is one of the most important tasks of any software engineering project. Nevertheless there exists no common definition of the term \software architecture" and no standard software architecture ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
June 2018
578 pages
ISBN:9781450365598
DOI:10.1145/3229345
Copyright © 2018 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
In-Cooperation
- SIGAPP: ACM Special Interest Group on Applied Computing
- SIGMIS: ACM Special Interest Group on Management Information Systems
- SBC: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 04 June 2018
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
SBSI'18
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 181 of 557 submissions, 32%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 103Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)14
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 15 Oct 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- de L. Xavier MFarias KBarbosa JGonçales LBishoff V(2019)UMLCollabProceedings of the XV Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems10.1145/3330204.3330239(1-8)Online publication date: 20-May-2019
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in