skip to main content
article

Errors in the UML metamodel?

Published:01 November 2003Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The Unified Modeling Language (UML) is becoming a standard for software specification, verification, visualization and documentation. Using the rules provided by the standard, software engineers can create models that are concrete and unambiguous.UML creators Booch, Rumbaugh and Jacobson, have defined the standard using UML terminology: they use model elements to define the standard. This way of representing UML is called UML Metamodel, and it is publicly available along with the English definition of the standard.The UML metamodel is intended for software engineers to verify the correctness of their models. It should be assumed, therefore, that the UML metamodel is itself error free. A close study of the UML metamodel by the authors, however, has shown that this may not be the case.After checking the Metamodel with all the rules, constraints and well-formedness rules defined by the standard, the authors found 450 errors and classified them in three different groups:1. Non-accessible elements: represents the most important problem found in the metamodel, and involves some misunderstandings with the contents method.2. Empty names: some rules of the standard states that some elements could not have the same name. Nevertheless, the standard does not clarify whether there could exist two different elements without name, which could be considered as the same (empty) name.3. Miscellanea: this last group of problems deals with duplicated names and derived associations.This paper analyzes and explains the reason for the errors and presents some suggestions for correcting, what the authors believe, are some deficiencies in UML's current standard. The analysis presented should be valuable to practicing software engineers engaged in software modeling.

References

  1. {OCL99} Jos B. Warmer, Anneke G. Kleppe. The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modeling with UML. Addison-Wesley, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. {OMG2} http://www.omg.org/issues/uml-rtf.html Issue 4848. See also Object Management Group's URL: (http://www.omg.org/).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. {Ordén01} Peter Ordén and Tom Boive. UML CASE Tool Evaluation. Aland's Institute of Technology - ATL (Mariehamn, Finland), May 2001. Available at www.ie.inf.uc3m.es/ggenova/pfc-OrdenBoive2001.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. {pUML} The Precise UML Group (http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/puml/).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. {UML03} Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.5, March 2003 (http://www.omg.org/).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Errors in the UML metamodel?
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes
      ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes  Volume 28, Issue 6
      November 2003
      139 pages
      ISSN:0163-5948
      DOI:10.1145/966221
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2003 Authors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 November 2003

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader