Automated abstraction of class diagrams

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 449-491

  Egyed, Alexander ^a  

^a Teknowledge Corporation   (United States)

Author keywords

Class abstraction; Class diagrams; Class patterns; Design; Reverse engineering; Transformation; Unified modeling language

Indexed keywords

CLASS ABSTRACTION; CLASS PATTERNS; TRANSFORMATION; UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

ABSTRACTING; ALGORITHMS; LOGIC PROGRAMMING; REVERSE ENGINEERING;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 11244349651     PISSN: 1049331X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/606612.606616     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. ABI-ANTOUN, M., Ho, J., AND KWAN, J. 1999. Inter-library loan management system: Revised life-cycle architecture. Center for Software Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif.
2. ALTMANN, R. A., HAWKE, A. N., AND MARLIN, C. D. 1988. An integrated programming environment based on multiple concurrent views. Austral. Comput. J. 20, 2, 65-72.
3. ALVARADO, S. 1998. An evaluation of object oriented architecture models for satellite ground systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd Ground Systems Architecture Workshop (GSAW), El Segundo, Calif.
4. BOOCH, G., RUMBAUGH, J. AND JACOBSON, I. 1999. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
5. DOHYUNG, K. 1999. Java MPEG Player. http://mirage.snu.ac.kr/dhkim/java/MPEG/.
6. EGYED, A. 2000. Heterogeneous view integration and its automation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif.
7. EGYED, A. 2001. A Scenario-driven approach to traceability. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 123-132.
8. EGYED, A. AND KEUCHTEN, P. 1999. Rose/Architect: A tool to visualize architecture. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Maui, HI.
9. EGYED, A. AND MEDVIDOVIC, N. 2000. A formal approach to heterogeneous software modeling. In Proceedings of 3rd Foundational Aspects of Software Engineering (FASE), Berlin, Germany. 178-192.
10. EGYED, A. AND WILE, D. 2001. Statechart simulator for modeling architectural dynamics. In Proceedings of the 2nd Working International Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 87-96.
11. EVANS, A., FRANCE, R., LANO, K, AND RUMPE, B. 1998. The UML as a formal modeling language. J. Comput. Stand. Interf. 19, 325-334.
12. FAGAN, M. E. 1986. Advances in software inspections. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. (TSE) 12, 7, 744-751.
13. FAHMY, H. AND HOLT, R. C. 2000. Using graph rewriting to specify software architectural transformations. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), 187-196.
14. FLNKELSTEIN, A., KRAMER, J., NUSEIBEH, B., FLNKELSTEIN, L., AND GOEDICKE, M. 1991. Viewpoints: A framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 31-58.
15. GAMMA, E., HELM, R., JOHNSON, R., AND VLISSIDES, J. 1994. Design Patterns Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
16. GARLAN, D. 1988. Views for tools in integrated environments. In Advanced Programming Environments, 314-343.
17. GOTEL, O. C. Z. AND FINKELSTEIN, A. C. W. 1994. An analysis of the requirements traceability problem. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Requirements Engineering, 94-101.
18. JACKSON, D. AND RINARD, M. 2000. Software analysis: A roadmap. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 133-145.
19. KHRISS, I., ELKOUTBI, M., AND KELLER, R. 1998. Automating the synthesis of UML statechart diagrams from multiple collaboration diagrams. In Proceedings for the Conference of the Unified Modeling Language, 132-147.
20. KOSHMIES, K., SYSTÄ, T., TUOMI, J., AND MäNNISTÖ, T. 1998. Automated support for modeling OO software. IEEE Softw. 87-94.
21. LIEBERHERR, K. J., HURSCH, W. L., AND XIAO, C. 1994. Object-extending class transformations. J. Form. Asp. Comput. 6, 4, 391-416.
22. McUMBER, W. E. AND CHENG, B. H. C. 2001. A general framework for formalizing UML with formal languages. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 433-442.
23. MUELLER, H., JAHNKE, J. H., SMITH, D. B., STOREY, M. A., TILLEY , S. R., AND WONG, K. 2000. Reverse engineering: A roadmap. In Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering, 47-60.
24. MURPHY, G. C., NOTKIN, D., AND SULLIVAN, K. 1995. Software reflexion models: bridging the gap between source and high-level models. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIG-SOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, New York, 18-28.
25. ÖVERGAARD, G. 1998. A formal approach to relationships in the unified modeling language. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Precise Semantics for Software Modeling Techniques (PSMT'98), 91-108.
26. RACZ, F. D. AND KOSKIMIES, K. 1999. Tool-supported compression of UML class diagrams. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language (UML), 172-187.
27. SCHUERR, A., WINTER, A. J., AND ZUENDORF, A. 1995. Graph grammar engineering with PROGRES. In Proceedings of the 5th European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC), 219-234.
28. SCHONBERGER, S., KELLER, R. K., AND KHRISS, I. 2001. Algorithmic support for model transformation in object-oriented software development. Concur. Computat. Prac. Exp. 13, 5, 351-383.
29. SIEGFRIED, S. 1996. Understanding Object-Oriented Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif.
30. SNELTING, G. AND TIP, F. 1998. Reengineering class hierarchies using concept analysis. In Proceed-ings of the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, New York, 99-110.
31. TARR, P., OSHER, H., HARRISON, W., AND SUTTON, S. M. JR. 1999. N degrees of separation: Multidimensional separation of concerns. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 21) (Los Angeles, Calif.). 107-119.
32. TSIOLAKIS, A. AND EHRIG, H. 2000. Consistency analysis of UML class and sequence diagrams using attributed graph grammars. In Proceedings of GRATRA 2000 (Berlin, Germany). 77-86.