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.
- {OCL99} Jos B. Warmer, Anneke G. Kleppe. The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modeling with UML. Addison-Wesley, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- {OMG2}
http://www.omg.org/issues/uml-rtf.html Issue 4848. See also Object Management Group's URL: (http://www.omg.org/ ).Google Scholar - {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.html Google Scholar - {pUML} The Precise UML Group (
http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/puml/ ).Google Scholar - {UML03} Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.5, March 2003 (
http://www.omg.org/ ).Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Errors in the UML metamodel?
Recommendations
Modularization of the UML Metamodel Using Model Slicing
ITNG '08: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Information Technology: New GenerationsThe UML metamodel has been increased in its size and complexity due to many needs for supporting various platforms and domains. The large size of the metammodel can prevent tool developers from understanding the UML metamodel and thus from developing ...
A metamodel for OCL
UML'99: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on The unified modeling language: beyond the standardThe Object Constraint Language (OCL) allows the extension of UML models with constraints in a formal way. While the UML itself is defined by following a metamodeling approach, there is currently no equivalent definition for the OCL. We propose a ...
A Configurable UML Based Use Case Modeling Metamodel
ECBS-EERC '09: Proceedings of the 2009 First IEEE Eastern European Conference on the Engineering of Computer Based SystemsThere is a variety of approaches to use case modeling, especially regarding their textual description as their true form. Under certain circumstances, the use of each one of these approaches may be justified. A consistent application of a particular ...
Comments