Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language

UML 1999: «UML»’99 — The Unified Modeling Language pp 67–82Cite as

A Comparison of the Business Object Notation and the Unified Modeling Language

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1723))

Abstract

Seamlessness, reversibility, and software contracting have been proposed as important techniques to be supported by object-oriented methods. These techniques are used to provide a framework for the comparison of two modeling languages, the Business Object Notation (BON) and the Unified Modeling Language (UML). Elements of the UML and its constraint language that do not support these techniques are discussed. Suggestions for further improvements to both BON and UML are described.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. F. Brooks. The Mythical Man Month, Addison-Wesley, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  2. D. D’Souza and A. Wills. Objects, Components, and Frameworks with UML: The Catalysis Approach, Addison-Wesley, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  3. I. Graham, J. Bischof, and B. Henderson-Sellers. Association considered a bad thing. Journal of Object-oriented Programming 9(9), February 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  4. I. Graham. Requirements Engineering and Rapid Development, Addison-Wesley, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  5. A. Hamie, F. Civello, J. Howse, S. Kent, and R. Mitchell. Reflections on the Object Constraint Language. In Proc. UML’98, Springer, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. Hamie, J. Howse, and S. Kent. Interpreting the Object Constraint Language. In Proc. APSEC’98, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  7. C.A.R. Hoare. The Emperor’s Old Clothes. Turing Award Lecture 1980. ACM Turing Award Lectures, ACM Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. Jackson. Software Requirements and Specifications, Addison-Wesley, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  9. S. Kent and I. Maung. Quantified Assertions in Eiffel. In Proc. TOOLS Pacific 1995, Prentice-Hall, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  10. B. Meyer. Object-Oriented Software Construction, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  11. B. Meyer. UML: The Positive Spin. American Programmer, March 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  12. R.F. Paige and J.S. Ostroff. Developing BON as an Industrial-Strength Formal Method. In Proc. World Congress on Formal Methods (FM’99), Springer-Verlag, September 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  13. R.F. Paige and J.S. Ostroff. A Comparison of BON and UML. Technical Report CS-1999-03, York University, May 1999, http://www.cs.yorku.ca/techreports/1999/CS-1999-03.html.

  14. J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, Addison-Wesley, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  15. A. Simons and I. Graham. 37 Things that Don’t Work in Object-Oriented Modeling with UML. In Proc. ECOOP’98 Workshops, TU-Munich Report 19813, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Unified Modeling Language Specification. Object Management Group, 1998. http://www.omg.org.

  17. K. Walden and J.-M. Nerson. Seamless Object-Oriented Software Development, Prentice-Hall, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  18. J. Warmer and A. Kleppe. The Object Constraint Language, Addison-Wesley, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, York University, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada

    Richard F. Paige & Jonathan S. Ostroff

Authors
  1. Richard F. Paige
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan S. Ostroff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1873, USA

    Robert France

  2. Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, D-80290, München, Germany

    Bernhard Rumpe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Paige, R.F., Ostroff, J.S. (1999). A Comparison of the Business Object Notation and the Unified Modeling Language. In: France, R., Rumpe, B. (eds) «UML»’99 — The Unified Modeling Language. UML 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1723. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46852-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46852-8_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-66712-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46852-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation