UML 1.4 versus UML 2.0 as languages to describe software architectures

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 3047, Issue , 2004, Pages 88-102

  Perez Martinez, Jorge Enrique ^a   Sierra Alonso, Almudena ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS;

ARCHITECTURAL STYLE; ARCHITECTURE COMMUNITY; DEVELOPMENT PROCESS; META MODEL; SOFTWARE ARTIFACTS; UML 2.0;

SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE;

EID: 33751042207     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-24769-2_7     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Abi-Antoun, M. and Medvidovic, N. (1999). Enabling the refinement of a software architecture into a design. In Proc. of The Second International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language. CO, USA: Springer-Verlag.
2. Bass, L., Clements, P. and Kazman, R. (1998). Software architecture in practice. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley
3. Björkander, M. and Kobryn, C. (2003). Architecting systems with UML 2.0. IEEE Software, 20,4,57-61.
4. Clements, P., Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Garlan, D., Ivers, J., Little, R., Nord, R. and Stafford, J. (2003). Documenting software architectures, views and beyond. Boston, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
5. Egyed, A. and Medvidovic, N. (2001). Consistent architectural refinement and evolution using the Unified Modeling Language. In Proc. of the 1st Workshop on Describing Software Architecture with UML. Toronto, Canada, 83-87.
6. Garlan, D., Alien, R. and Ockerbloom, J. (1994). Exploiting style in architectural design environments. In Proc. of SIGSOFT94: The Second ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, 175-188.
7. Garlan, D. and Kompanek, A.J. (2000). Reconciling the needs of architectural description with object-modeling notation. UML 2000 - The Unified Modeling Language: Advancing the Standard. Third International Conference. York, UK: Springer-Verlag.
8. Gomaa, H. and Wijesekera (2001). The role of UML, OCL and ADLs in software architecture. In Proc. of the Workshop on Describing Software Architecture with UML, ICSE'0l. Toronto, Canada.
9. Hilliar, R. (1999). Building blocks for extensibility in the UML. Response to UML 2.0 Request For Information". Available from OMG as ad/99-12-12.
10. Hofmeister, C., Nord, R.L. and Soni, D. (1999). Describing software architecture with UML. In Proc. of the First Working IFIP Conf. on Software Architecture. San Antonio, TX: IEEE.
11. IEEE (2000). IEEE Recommended practice for architectural description of softwareintensive systems.
12. Kandé, M. M. and Strohmeier, A. (2000). Towards a UML profile for software architecture descriptions. UML 2000 - The Unified Modeling Language: Advancing the Standard. York, UK: Springer-Verlag.
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. and Rosenblum, D.S. (2001). UML component diagrams and software architecture- experiences from the WREN project. In Proc. of the Workshop on Describing Software Architecture with UML, ICSE'0l. Toronto, Canada.
15. Medvidovic, N. (1999). Architecture-based specification-time software evolution. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Irvine, 1999).
16. Medvidovic, N., Rosenblum, D.S., Redmiles, D.F. and Robbins, I.E. (2002). Modeling software architectures in the unified modeling language. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 11 (1), 2-57.
17. Mehta, N.R., Medvidovic, N. and Phadke, S. (2000). Towards a taxonomy of software connectors. In Proc. of ICSE'00, ACM. Limerick, Ireland, 178-187.
18. OMG (2001). Unified Modeling Language specification (version 1.4).
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. Perez-Martmez, I.E. (2003). Heavyweight extensions to the UML metamodel to describe the C3 architectural style. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 28 (3).
22. Rausch, A. (2001). Towards a software architecture specification language based on UML and OCL. In Proc. of the Workshop on Describing Software Architecture with UML, ICSE'0l, Toronto, Canada.
23. Riva, C., Xu, J. and Maccari, A. (2001). Architecting and reverse architecting in UML. In Proc. of the Workshop on Describing Software Architecture with UML, ICSE'0l, Toronto, Canada.
24. Rumpe, B., Schoenmakers, M., Radermacher, A. and Schurr, A. (1999). UML + ROOM as a standard ADL? In Proc. of Fifth International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer System, Las Vegas, Nevada.
25. Selic, B. (2001). On modeling architectural structures with UML. In Proc. of the Workshop on Describing Software Architecture with UML, ICSE'0l. Toronto, Canada.
26. Shaw, M. (1994). 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.
27. Shaw, M., DeLine, R. and Zelesnik, G. (1996). Abstractions and implementations for architectural connections. In Proc. of 3rd International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems, Annapolis, Maryland.
28. Shaw, M. and Garlan, D. (1996). Software architecture. Perspectives on an emerging discipline. N.J., USA: Prentice-Hall.
29. Störrle, H. (2001). Turning UML-subsystems into architectural units. In Proc. of the Workshop on Describing Software Architecture with UML, ICSE'0l, Toronto, Canada.