Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design Phase Consistency: A Tool for Reverse Engineering of UML Activity Diagrams to Their Original Scenarios in the Specification Phase

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computational Science and Its Applications -- ICCSA 2015 (ICCSA 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 9158))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In this paper, we present a tool that preserves phase consistency from specifications to the design phase by reverse engineering UML activity diagrams, designed from scenario specifications, back to scenarios to ensure that all of the original scenarios can be recreated. We use a set of action and action-link rules to specify the activity and scenario diagrams in order to provide consistency and rigor. Given an activity diagram depicting a common telecentre process (es), we present an algorithm that follows this set of action and action-link rules to reverse engineer this activity diagram back to their set of scenarios. The validation of this algorithm is achieved when, given a set of activity diagrams, the algorithm is able to recreate the original set of scenarios. Thus, all original specifications, in the form of scenarios, are ensured to be encapsulated within their activity diagram.

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. Battacharjee, A.K., Shyamasunda, R.K.: Activity diagrams: a formal framework to model business processes and code generation. Journal of Object Technology 8(1), 189–200 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Boehm, B.W.: Verifying and validating software requirements and design specifications. IEEE software (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chanda, J., et al.: Traceability of requirements and consistency verification of UML use case, activity and Class diagram: a formal approach. In: Proceeding of International Conference on Methods and Models in Computer Science, 2. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gomez, R., Pather, S., Dosono, B.: Public access computing in South Africa: old lessons and new challenges. Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries 52(1), 1–16 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gould, E., Gomez, R.: Community Engagement &Intermediaries: challenges facing libraries, telecentres and cybercafés in developing countries (2010). https://ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/19429

  6. Han, K.H.: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of workflows based on the UML activity diagram and Petri net. Information Systems 11(23) (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Harris, R.W.: Telecentre Evaluation in the Malasian Context. In: 5th International conference on IT in Asia, 5–7 July 2007, Sarawak Malaysia (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Heitmeyer, C.L., Jeffords, R.D., Labaw, B.G.: Automated consistency checking of requirements specifications. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 5(3), 231–261 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hofmeister, C., et al.: A general model of software architecture design derived from five industrial approaches. Journal of Systems and Software 80(1), 106–126 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jacobson, I., et al.: The unified software development process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Linzhang, W., et al.: Generating test cases from UML activity diagram based on gray-box method. In: Software Engineering Conference, 2004. 11th Asia-Pacific. IEEE (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Maiden, N.A.M.: CREWS-SAVRE: Scenarios for acquiring and validating requirements. Automated Software Engineering 5(4), 419–446 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. McConnell, S.: Telecentres around the world: Issues to be considered and lessons learned. ICT Development group for CIDA’s Canada-Thai Telecentre Project, Columbia Canada (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Munassar, N.M.A., Govardhan, A.: A comparison between five models of software engineering. IJCSI 5, 95–101 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  15. OMG: Unified Modeling Language TM (OMG UML), Superstructure Version 2.4.1 Information technology-Object Management Group Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Infrastructure

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pancham, J., R Millham, P Singh: A Validated Model for Operational Monitoring of Telecentres’ Activities in a Developing Country. In: 7th International Development and Informatics Association Conference, Bangkok (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Peterson, J.L.: Petri nets. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 9(3), 223–252 (1977)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Peffers, K., Tunnanen, T., et al.: The design science research process: a model for producing and presenting information systems research. In: Proceedings of The First International Conference On Design Science Research In Information Systems And Technology (DESRIST 2006), pp. 83–106 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Potts, C., Takahashi, K., Anton, A.I.: Inquiry based Requirements Analysis. IEEE Software 11(2), 21–32 (1994). http://www4.ncsu.edu/~aianton/pubs/ieeeSW.pdf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rafe, V., et al.: Verification and validation of activity diagrams using graph transformation. In: International Conference on Computer Technology and Development. ICCTD 2009. vol. 1. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rajapakse, J: Impact of Telecentres on Sri Lankan Society. In: 8th International Conference on Computing and Networking Technology, pp. 281 – 286 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rantapuska, T., Millham, R.: 15P. Applying Organisational Learning to User Requirements Elicitation. IRMA. (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Satzinger, J.W., Jackson, R.B., Burd, S. D.: Introduction to Systems Analysis and Design: An Agile, Iterative Approach, Course Technology, Cengage Learning (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schach, S.R.: Object-oriented and classical software engineering, vol. 6. McGraw-Hill, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sommerville, I.: Software engineering, Pearson Higher Ed. (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Stevens, P., Pooley, R.: Using UML: Software Engineering with Objects and Components, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley, Harlow, UK (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Swain, R.K., Panthi, V., Behara, P.K.: Generation of test cases using activity diagram. International Journal of Computer Science and Informatics (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wieringa, R.: Design science methodology: principles and practice. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering-vol. 2, ACM, pp. 493–494 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Yeasmin, S., Rahman, K.F.: Triangulation’ Research Method as the Tool of Social Science Research, BUP Journal 1(1), September 2012

    Google Scholar 

  30. Xuping, J.: Modeling and Application of Requirements Engineering Process Metamodel. In: IEEE International Symposium on Knowledge Acquisition and Modeling Workshop. KAM Workshop, 21–22 Dec. 2008. pp. 998–1001 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Zowghi, D., Gervasi, V.: On the interplay between consistency, completeness, and correctness in requirements evolution. Information and Software Technology 45(14), 993–1009 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Muskens, J., Bril, R.J., Chaudron, M.R.V.: Generalizing consistency checking between software views. In: 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture. IEEE (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of IT, Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa

    Jay Pancham & Richard Millham

Authors
  1. Jay Pancham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Millham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Millham .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Osvaldo Gervasi

  2. University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy

    Beniamino Murgante

  3. Covenant University, Canaanland, Nigeria

    Sanjay Misra

  4. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    Marina L. Gavrilova

  5. University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

    Ana Maria Alves Coutinho Rocha

  6. Polytechnic University, Bari, Italy

    Carmelo Torre

  7. Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

    David Taniar

  8. Kyushu Sangyo University, Fukuoka, Japan

    Bernady O. Apduhan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Pancham, J., Millham, R. (2015). Design Phase Consistency: A Tool for Reverse Engineering of UML Activity Diagrams to Their Original Scenarios in the Specification Phase. In: Gervasi, O., et al. Computational Science and Its Applications -- ICCSA 2015. ICCSA 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9158. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21410-8_50

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21410-8_50

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21409-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21410-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation