Rearchitecting the UML infrastructure

ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 290-321

  Atkinson, Colin ^a   Kühne, Thomas ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

^b DARMSTADT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Classification; Classification dimensions; Deep instantiation; Metamodeling; Strict metamodeling; UML infrastructure; Unified modeling language

Indexed keywords

CLASSIFICATION; DEEP INSTANTIATION; METAMODELING; STRICT METAMODELING; UML INFRASTRUCTURE; UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

ABSTRACTING; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FORMAL LOGIC; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; PROBLEM SOLVING;

OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING;

EID: 0141796082     PISSN: 10493301     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/643120.643123     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. ÁLVAREZ, J., EVANS, A., AND SAMMUT, P. 2001. Mapping between levels in the metamodel architecture. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, M. Gogolla and C. Kobryn, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2185, 34-46.
2. ATKINSON, C. AND KÜHNE, T. 2000. Strict profiles: Why and how. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1939, 309-322.
3. ATKINSON, C. AND KÜHNE, T. 2001a. Processes and products in a multi-level metamodeling architecture. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 11, 6, 761-783.
4. ATKINSON, C. AND KÜHNE, T. 2001b. The essence of multi-level metamodeling. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, M. Gogolla, C. Kobryn, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2185, 19-33.
5. BÉZIVIN, J., AND GERBÉ, O. 2001. Towards a precise definition of the OMG/MDA framework. In Proceedings of Automated Software Engineering, ASE'2001 (San Diego, November).
6. CDIF TECHNICAL COMMITTEE. 1994. CDIF Framework for modeling and extensibility, Electronic Industries Association, EIA/IS-107, January.
7. EVANS, A. S., AND KENT, S. 1999. Meta-modeling semantics of UML: The pUML approach. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, B. Rumpe and R. B. France, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1723.
8. GAMMA, E., HELM, R., JOHNSON, R. E., AND VLISSIDES, J. 1994. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
9. GEISLER, R., KLAR, M., AND PONS, C. 1998. Dimensions and dichotomy in metamodeling. In Proceedings of the Third BCS-FACS Northern Formal Methods Workshop (September). Springer-Verlag, New York.
10. HAREL, D. AND RUMPE, B. 2000. Modeling languages: 2000. Syntax, semantics and all that stuff - Part I: The basic stuff, Tech. Rep. MCS00-16, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel.
11. HENDERSON-SELLERS, B. 2002. The use of subtypes and stereotypes in the UML model. J. Database Manage. 13, 2, 43-50.
12. HENDERSON-SELLERS, B. AND BULTHUIS, A. 1997. Object-Oriented Metamethods. Springer Verlag, New York.
13. JOHNSON, R. AND WOOLF, B. 1998. Type object. In Pattern Languages of Program Design 3, Robert C. Martin, D. Riehle, and F. Buschmann, Eds., Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
14. KOBRYN, C. 2001. UML 2001: A standardization odyssey. Commun. ACM 42, 10, 29-37.
15. MILI, H. AND PACHET, F. 1998. Patterns for metamodeling. Available at http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/44259.html.
16. ODELL, J. 1994. Power types. J. Object-Orient Program. (May).
17. OMG. 2001. OMG Unified Modeling Language specification, version 1.4. OMG document ad/00-11-01.
18. RIEHLE, D., FRALEIGH S., BUCKA-LASSEN, D., AND OMOROGBE, N. 2001. The architecture of a UML virtual machine. In Proceedings of OOPSLA'01. ACM Press, New York, 327-341.