Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

UML 1.4 versus UML 2.0 as Languages to Describe Software Architectures

  • Conference paper
Software Architecture (EWSA 2004)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 3047))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

UML 1.4 is widely accepted as the standard for representing the various software artifacts generated by a development process. For this reason, there have been attempts to use this language to represent the software architecture of systems as well. Unfortunately, these attempts have ended in representations (boxes and lines) already criticized by the software architecture community. Recently, OMG has published a draft that will constitute the future UML 2.0 specification. In this paper we compare the capacities of UML 1.4 and UML 2.0 to describe software architectures. In particular, we study extensions of both UML versions to describe the static view of the C3 architectural style (a simplification of the C2 style). One of the results of this study is the difficulties found when using the UML 2.0 metamodel to describe the concept of connector in a software architecture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abi-Antoun, M., Medvidovic, N.: Enabling the refinement of a software architecture into a design. In: France, R.B., Rumpe, B. (eds.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 17–31. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R.: Software architecture in practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Björkander, M., Kobryn, C.: Architecting systems with UML 2.0. IEEE Software 20(4), 57–61 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Clements, P., Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Garlan, D., Ivers, J., Little, R., Nord, R., Stafford, J.: Documenting software architectures, views and beyond. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Egyed, A., Medvidovic, N.: Consistent architectural refinement and evolution using the Unified Modeling Language. In: Proc. of the 1st Workshop on Describing Software Architecture with UML, Toronto, Canada, pp. 83–87 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Garlan, D., Allen, R., Ockerbloom, J.: Exploiting style in architectural design environments. In: Proc. of SIGSOFT 1994: The Second ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 175–188 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Garlan, D., Kompanek, A.J.: Reconciling the needs of architectural description with object-modeling notation. In: Evans, A., Kent, S., Selic, B. (eds.) UML 2000. LNCS, vol. 1939, pp. 498–512. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gomaa, H., Wijesekera: The role of UML, OCL and ADLs in software architecture. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Describing Software Architecture with UML, ICSE 2001, Toronto, Canada (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hilliar, R.: Building blocks for extensibility in the UML. Response to UML 2.0 Request For Information”. Available from OMG as ad/99-12-12 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hofmeister, C., Nord, R.L., Soni, D.: Describing software architecture with UML. In: Proc. of the First Working IFIP Conf. on Software Architecture, IEEE, San Antonio (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  11. IEEE, IEEE Recommended practice for architectural description of softwareintensive systems (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kandé, M.M., Strohmeier, A.: Towards a UML profile for software architecture descriptions. In: Evans, A., Kent, S., Selic, B. (eds.) UML 2000. LNCS, vol. 1939, pp. 513–527. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kramler, G. (2003), Overview of UML 2.0 abstract syntax, Available from http://www.big.tuwien.ac.at/staff/kramler/uml/uml2-superstructure-overview.html

  14. Lüer, C., Rosenblum, D.S.: UML component diagrams and software architecture-experiences from the WREN project. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Describing Software Architecture with UML, ICSE 2001, Toronto, Canada (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Medvidovic, N.: Architecture-based specification-time software evolution. Doctoral Dissertation. University of California, Irvine (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Medvidovic, N., Rosenblum, D.S., Redmiles, D.F., Robbins, J.E.: Modeling software architectures in the unified modeling language. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 11(1), 2–57 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mehta, N.R., Medvidovic, N., Phadke, S.: Towards a taxonomy of software connectors. In: Proc. of ICSE 2000, pp. 178–187. ACM, Limerick (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. OMG, Unified Modeling Language specification, version 1.4 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  19. OMG (2003a). Unified Modeling Language (UML) Specification: Infrastructure, version 2.0 (ptc/03-09-15), http://www.omg.org/uml

  20. OMG (2003b). Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.0 (ptc/03-08-02), http://www.omg.org/uml

  21. Pérez-Martínez, J.E.: Heavyweight extensions to the UML metamodel to describe the C3 architectural style. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 28(3) (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rausch, A.: Towards a software architecture specification language based on UML and OCL. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Describing Software Architecture with UML, ICSE 2001, Toronto, Canada (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Riva, C., Xu, J., Maccari, A.: Architecting and reverse architecting in UML. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Describing Software Architecture with UML, ICSE 2001, Toronto, Canada (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rumpe, B., Schoenmakers, M., Radermacher, A., Schürr, A.: UML + ROOM as a standard ADL? In: Proc. of Fifth International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer System, Las Vegas, Nevada (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Selic, B.: On modeling architectural structures with UML. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Describing Software Architecture with UML, ICSE 2001, Toronto, Canada (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Shaw, M.: Procedure calls are the assembly language of software interconnection: Connectors deserve first-class status. Tech. Rep. CMU-CS-94-107, Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science and Software Engineering Institute (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shaw, M., DeLine, R., Zelesnik, G.: Abstractions and implementations for architectural connections. In: Proc. of 3rd International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems, Annapolis, Maryland (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Shaw, M., Garlan, D.: Software architecture. Perspectives on an emerging discipline. Prentice-Hall, N.J. (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Störrle, H.: Turning UML-subsystems into architectural units. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Describing Software Architecture with UML, ICSE 2001, Toronto, Canada (2001)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Informática Aplicada, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Campus Sur de la U.P.M., 28031, Madrid, Spain

    Jorge Enrique Pérez-Martínez

  2. Escuela Politécnica Superior, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Ctra. de Colmenar, km. 15, 28049, Madrid, Spain

    Almudena Sierra-Alonso

Authors
  1. Jorge Enrique Pérez-Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Almudena Sierra-Alonso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. VALORIA Laboratory, University of South Brittany, Tohannic Campus, 56017, Vannes, France

    Flavio Oquendo

  2. University of Manchester, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK

    Brian C. Warboys

  3. School of Computer Science, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, KY16 9SX, St Andrews Fife, UK

    Ron Morrison

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Pérez-Martínez, J.E., Sierra-Alonso, A. (2004). UML 1.4 versus UML 2.0 as Languages to Describe Software Architectures. In: Oquendo, F., Warboys, B.C., Morrison, R. (eds) Software Architecture. EWSA 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3047. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24769-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24769-2_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-22000-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-24769-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy