LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Appukuttan, Biju K.; Clark, Tony; Evans, Andy; Maskeri, Girish; Sammut, Paul; Tratt, Laurence; Willans, James S.
Publisher: N/A
Languages: English
Types: Unknown
Subjects: des, csi
The 2U Consortium has recently submitted a proposal for the definition of the UML 2.0 infrastructure. This uses an innovative technique of rapidly “stamping out” the definition using a small number of patterns commonly found in software architecture. The patterns, their instantiation, and any further language details are described using precise class diagrams and OCL, this enables the definition to be easily understood. The main focus of the 2U approach is on the static part of the definition. A further concern when modelling software, using languages such as the UML, is describing the dynamic\ud behaviour of the system over time. The contribution of this paper is to provide a template that can be\ud used to “stamp out” the dynamic part of the UML 2.0 infrastructure. We argue for the suitability of the\ud dynamic template because it makes little commitment to concrete abstractions and can, therefore, be used\ud to support a broad spectrum of behavioural languages.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Rumbaugh, J., I. Jacobson, and G. Booch, The Unified Modelling Language Reference Manual, . 1999, Addison Wesley.
    • 2. 2U Consortium, Initial Submission to OMG RFP's: ad/00-09-01 (UML 2.0 Infrastructure) and ad/00-09-03 (UML 2.0 OCL). 2001.
    • 3. Harel, D., Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming, 1987. 8: p. 231-274.
    • 4. Hoare, C.A.R., Communicating Sequential Processes. Communications of the ACM, 1978. 28(8): p. 666-677.
    • 5. Petri, C.A., Kommunikation mit automaten, . 1962, Institu fur Instrumentella Mathematic.
    • 6. Gamma, E., et al., Design Patterns, Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Professional Computing Series. 1995: Addison Wesley.
    • 7. U2 Partners, Unified Modelling Language 2.0 Proposal version 0.64 (draft), . 2001. Available at http://www.u2-partners.org
    • 8. Alvarez, J.M., et al., An Action Semantics for MML. Lecture notes in computer science, 2001. 2185: p. 2-18.
    • 9. Action Semantics for the UML, OMG ad/2001-08-04, Response to OMG RFP ad/98-11-01, . 2001. Available at http://www.umlactionsemantics.org
    • 10. Kleppe, A. and J. Warmer, Unification of static and dynamic semantics in UML, 2001, Klasse Objecten.
    • 11. Roever, W.-P.d. and K. Engelhardt, Data Refinement: Model-Oriented Proof Methods and their Comparison. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. 1998: Cambridge University Press.
    • 12. Burns, A. and A. Wellings, Hard Real-Time HOOD: A Structured Design Method for Hard Real-Time Ada Systems. 1995: Elsevier.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article