Why unified is not universal: UML Shortcomings for coping with round-trip engineering

23Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

UML is currently embraced as “the” standard in object-oriented modeling languages, the recent work of OMG on the Meta Object Facility (MOF) being the most noteworthy example. We welcome these standardisation efforts, yet warn against the tendency to use UML as the panacea for all exchange standards. In particular, we argue that UML is not sufficient to serve as a tool-interoperability standard for integrating round-trip engineering tools, because one is forced to rely on UML’s built-in extension mechanisms to adequately model the reality in source-code. Consequently, we propose an alternative meta-model (named FAMIX), which serves as the tool interoperability standard within the FAMOOS project and which includes a number of constructive suggestions that we hope will influence future releases of the UML and MOF standards.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Demeyer, S., Ducasse, S., & Tichelaar, S. (1999). Why unified is not universal: UML Shortcomings for coping with round-trip engineering. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 1723, pp. 630–644). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46852-8_44

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free