Geodesic
Refinement of UML collaborations
International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Tome 16 (2006) no. 1, pp. 155-164.

Voir la notice de l'article provenant de la source Library of Science

The paper concerns the concept of refinement as a commonly used design practice in the software development process. The refinement relationship is formulated and formally expressed for UML collaborations. Collaborations are suitable for presenting the proposed approach as they represent both static and dynamic aspects of a modeled system or its part, for example, a use case. Our approach to refinement is based on the rule of preserving the observable behavior of a modeled system. The introduced notion of sub-collaborations allows us to refine collaboration diagrams in a systematic way.
Keywords: UML, collaborations, refinement
Mots-clés : UML, współpraca, rafinacja 
@article{IJAMCS_2006_16_1_a11,
     author = {Hnatkowska, B. and Huzar, Z. and Tuzinkiewicz, L.},
     title = {Refinement of {UML} collaborations},
     journal = {International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science},
     pages = {155--164},
     publisher = {mathdoc},
     volume = {16},
     number = {1},
     year = {2006},
     language = {en},
     url = {http://geodesic.mathdoc.fr/item/IJAMCS_2006_16_1_a11/}
}
TY  - JOUR
AU  - Hnatkowska, B.
AU  - Huzar, Z.
AU  - Tuzinkiewicz, L.
TI  - Refinement of UML collaborations
JO  - International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science
PY  - 2006
SP  - 155
EP  - 164
VL  - 16
IS  - 1
PB  - mathdoc
UR  - http://geodesic.mathdoc.fr/item/IJAMCS_2006_16_1_a11/
LA  - en
ID  - IJAMCS_2006_16_1_a11
ER  - 
%0 Journal Article
%A Hnatkowska, B.
%A Huzar, Z.
%A Tuzinkiewicz, L.
%T Refinement of UML collaborations
%J International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science
%D 2006
%P 155-164
%V 16
%N 1
%I mathdoc
%U http://geodesic.mathdoc.fr/item/IJAMCS_2006_16_1_a11/
%G en
%F IJAMCS_2006_16_1_a11
Hnatkowska, B.; Huzar, Z.; Tuzinkiewicz, L. Refinement of UML collaborations. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Tome 16 (2006) no. 1, pp. 155-164. http://geodesic.mathdoc.fr/item/IJAMCS_2006_16_1_a11/

[1] Boiten E. and Bujorianu M. (2003): Exploring UML refinement through unification, In: Critcal Systems Development with UML, Proc. UML'03, (J. Jürjens, B. Rumpe, R. France, and E.B. Fernandez, Eds.). - Technische Universität München, No. TUM-I0323, pp. 47-62.

[2] Cengarle M.V. and Knapp A. (2004): UML 2.0 interactions: Semantics and refinement, In: Critical Systems Development with UML, Proc. CSDUML'04 (J. Jürjens, E.B. Fernandez, R. France and B. Rumpe, Eds.).-Technische Universität München, pp. 85-99.

[3] Clark T. (2000): Object-oriented refinement and proof using behaviour functions. - Proc. 3rd Workshop Rigorous Object-Oriented Methods, York, electronic edition available at: http://ewic.bcs.org/conferences/2000/ objectmethods/papers/paper2.htm.

[4] Egyed A. (2002): Automated abstraction of class diagrams. - ACMTrans. Soft. Eng. Meth., Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 449-491.

[5] Fowler M. and Scott K. (2000): UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language. - Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley.

[6] Fowler M., Beck K., Brant J., OpdykeW. and Roberts D. (1999): Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. - Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley.

[7] Harel D. and Politi M. (1998): Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The Statemate Approach. - New York:McGraw-Hill.

[8] Hnatkowska B., Huzar Z., Kuźniarz L. and Tuzinkiewicz L. (2003): Refinement relationship between collaborations. - Proc. 2nd Workshop Consistency Problems in UML-based Software Development (in conjunction with UML03), San Francisco, pp. 51-57.

[9] Hnatkowska B., Huzar Z. and Tuzinkiewicz L. (2004a): Collaboration and class diagram consistency.-Found. Comput. Dec. Sci., Vol. 29, No. 1-2, pp. 75-89.

[10] Hnatkowska B., Huzar Z. and Tuzinkiewicz L. (2004b): Structure refinement of class diagrams. -Proc. Conf. Information Systems Implementation and Modelling, Roznov pod Radhostem, Czech Republik, pp. 37-44.

[11] Hnatkowska B., Huzar Z. and Tuzinkiewicz L. (2004c): On understanding of refinement relationship. -Proc. 3rd Workshop Consistency Problems in UML-based Software Development (in conjunction with UML04), Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 11-22.

[12] Hubert R. (2001): Convergent Architecture. Building Model- Driven J2EE Systems with UML.- New York: Wiley.

[13] Jacobson I., Booch G. and Rumbaugh J. (1999): The Unified Software Development Process. - Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

[14] Katara M. and Mikkonen T. (2002): Refinements and aspects in UML. - Proc. Workshop Aspect- Oriented Modeling (in Conjunction with UML02), Dresden, Germany, electronic edition available at: http://lgl.epfl.ch/workshops/uml2002/ papers/katara.pdf.

[15] Knapp A. and Merz S. (2002): Model checking and code generation for UML state machnines and collaborations.-Proc. 5th Workshop Tools for System Design and Verification, Institut fur Informatik, Universitat Augsburg, pp. 59-64.

[16] Knapp A., Merz S. and Rauch Ch. (2002): Model checking timed UML state machines and collaborations. - Proc. 7th Int. Symp. Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault Tolerant Systems, Berlin, Germany, pp. 395-416.

[17] Kruchten P. (1999): The Rational Unified Process. An Introduction. - Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, Longman.

[18] Lano K. and Bicarregui J. (1999): Semantics and transformations for UML models. - Proc. 1st Int. Workshop Unified Modeling Language, (in conjunction with UML'98: Beyond the Notation), Mulhouse, France, pp. 107-119.

[19] Liu Z., Li X, Liu J. and Jifeng H. (2004a): Integrating and Refining UML Models. -UNU/IIST Report, No. 295.

[20] Liu Z., Jifeng H., Li X. and Chen Y. (2004b): Consistency and Refinement of UML Models. - Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop Consistency Problems in UML-based Software Development (in conjunction with UML04), Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 23-40.

[21] Manassis E. (2004): Practical Software Engineering. Analysis and Design for. NET Platform. - Boston: Addison-Wesley.

[22] OMG (2003): OMG Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, Version 2.0.- Final Adopted Specification.

[23] Pratt V. (1986): Modelling concurrency with partial orders. - Int. J. Parallel Program., Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 33-71.

[24] Pons C. and Kutche R.D. (2004): Traceability across refinement steps in UML Modelling. - Proc. of 3rd Workshop Software Model Engineering, WiSME 2004, Satellite Workshop at the 7-th Int. Conf. UML, Lisbon, Portugal, available at: http://www. metamodel.con/wisme-2004/present/19pdf

[25] Pons C., Giandini R. and Baum G. (2000): Dependency relations between models in the Unified Process. - Proc. IEEE Int. Workshop Software Specification and Design IWSSD, San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 149-157.

[26] Rumbaugh J., Jacobson I. and Booch G. (2004): The Unified Modeling Language. Reference Manual, 2nd Ed. -Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.

[27] Souza D.F.D. and Wills A.C. (1999): Objects, Components and Frameworks with UML - The Catalysis Approach. - Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, Longman.

[28] Sunye G., Pollet D., Traon Y. and Fezequel J.(2001): Refactoring UML Models, In: Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools, Proc. UML01 (M. Gogolla, C. Kobryn, Eds.). - Berlin: Springer, pp. 134-148.