I'm working on a model-to-model transformation with UML activity diagram model as a target model. For this reason I'm looking for a activity diagram metamodel. However, my search wasn't really successful. I read a lot of OMG specifications and I'm still confused about the model hierarchy.
I get that the MOF is the metametamodel, but what exactly is the metamodel? Does every UML diagram has the same metamodel?
It's like your grammar book from school: it describes the language you use in the language you use. Kind of a recursive definition. So in order to describe what class, sequence, activity, etc. diagrams (and the concepts behind) mean, it uses exactly those concepts - plus quite some natural text which makes it a bit easier for humans to understand it. In fact, the model itself would (should?) suffice as declarative. But since we are humans and not computers the authors of UML have put lots and lots of plain English text around it.
Related
I need insight on how much UML to teach. I'm an adjunct for a "2-credit 100-level introductory course" on systems analysis and design (a contradiction in terms to me). The text is written for the typical 300-level 3-credit class. This chapter covers ~7 UML diagrams, it's already extremely simplistic, and I have to strip it down further. I have one week, or two class hours, to cover it.
I've concluded I can either trash the book and cover class diagrams well, which would introduce them to a lot of basic OO concepts, or I can simply aim for basic recognition of these 7 diagrams (not even expecting them to create any). But I feel like basic recognition would so totally skim the surface as to be useless for these brand-new programmers and the diagrams would run together meaninglessly. Advice greatly appreciated.
The 7, by the way, are: object relationship, use case, class, sequence, state transition, activity, and business process modeling.
There are several UML elements that map easily to code and are therefore straightforward to use as design elements.
Package diagram (translates to namespaces).
Class diagram (translates to classes in OO languages).
State machine (translates to any number of state-based implementations).
Sequence diagram (shows chronology of method invocations).
I would say that this is the minimum useful set of UML elements to teach. If you have time, I would also encourage people to learn use case diagrams, although many people find text documents just as effective for that type of analysis.
I would recommend to focus on class diagrams. They are the most useful type of UML diagram for analysing, designing and documenting (the information, or state, structure of) a software system. You could show how class diagrams define
the properties of an object type, both data-valued attributes and object-valued reference properties (representing unidirectional associations).
if a property is single-valued or multi-valued (by its multiplicity)
other property constraints
inheritance relationships in class hierarchies
You could show how classes can be used for conceptual information modeling (also called domain modeling) in the analysis phase, where they define the real-world object types, and for design modeling in the design phase, where they define platform-independent computational constructs to be implemented in some target programming language.
I'm learning software engineering at school and right now we're focusing on data diagrams. That is, Objec Classes, associations (and multiplicities), Ternary (or in general N-ary) assocciations, aggregation classes and so on.
I've been taught that we are using the UML standard, but as far as I can see, most UML editors I've found don't even support (or do it very poorly) the UML concepts I am using, I find myself using text labels all over the diagram to express almost anything, and I can't even define an N-ary association properly. I can draw a diamond from the flow-chart drawing part and draw some arrows, then define multiplicities with labels, but I find that unprofessional.
So, I've got two questions: Is UML what I've been taught? Does it have a more specific name (I was told they were called data diagrams).
How can I check that I am using the correct tool and that it is really UML what I study?
n-ary associations are UML. But they are not so often used really. Most of associations are one-or two-directional binary ones.
DATA diagrams are NOT UML. But the standard allows to use class diagrams for showing tables and their relationships. If you use class diagrams, it is UML, if data diagrams, it is not.
Multiplicities are UML. You should define them as attributes of association.
As for arrows, UML standard allows not to show them. But of course, they should be again set as attributes of association.
It seems that you use diagramming tool without UML class diagrams support. And youu need rather a modelling tool. Try VP-UML - it has free community license, including all types of UML diagrams. Or if you can install Eclipse, it has many UML plugins. The largest are EMF or Papyrus. They are free. Green UML is for starters.
I understand your troubles - many "UML" courses do not teach real UML. Many widely used tools have errors in UML realization. Some of them (IBM) are very far from the standard. The best place to check if you are on the right way, is the OMG UML 2.5 standard. It is beta2, but the content is virtually equal to the current 2.4.1, and is more easy to understand. (the current change has merely to simplify the documentation)
I'm currently working on a project for my university and one teacher told me I was wrong to think that there could be classes in a UML class diagram (thinking of it as a design diagram) to which there would be no equivalent in a data model. He then pressured me to provide a counter-example to prove my point but I just couldn't think of one.
I checked a few books I had about UML like "Learning UML 2.0," "Applying UML and Patterns" and UML 2 for dummies, but I couldn't find any information regarding which classes appear on a class diagram. I asked him about implementation classes but he told me that they shouldn't be included in a class diagram. So I'm at a loss here.
I also checked this questions before posting:
Differences between a conceptual UML class diagram and an ERD?
Generate UML from a conceptual data model
how to relate data with function in uml class diagram
But they don't really solve the question I have.
Thanks for any insight you might have.
Both your teacher and you are unnecessarily distracted by the differences between UML and conceptual data modeling (which I take to be tantamount to ER modeling). The real issue you and your teacher are discussing is the difference between analysis and design, regardless of the model used.
A UML model can be created that diagrams the problem as stated or that diagrams the solution as designed. In the first case, implementation classes should be omitted, because they do not pertain to the problem domain. In the second case, they should be included. The first case is analysis. The second case is design.
The same ambiguity exists with regard to ER diagrams. Some people, including myself, use ER models and ER diagrams only to represent the data requirements inherent in the problem itself. This is what is most often meant by "conceptual data modeling". In this framework, the only entities that should appear are entities that have a perceived reality in the subject matter itself, and are not merely constructs inside the database or the application(s). This is analysis.
But there are plenty of other people, perhaps a majority, who use ER diagrams to pictorialize the design of a schema of tables. In this framework, foreign keys are included, and junction tables are elevated to the status of entities, even though they are not subject matter entities. There's nothing inherently wrong in this, so long as the distiction between analysis and design is kept clear.
Unfortunately, the distinction between analysis and design is very often obscured beyond recognition. There are dozens of instances of this right here in SO.
So, if a confusion between analysis and design is allowed to creep into the discussion between you and your teacher, the discussion could end up going in almost any direction.
"one teacher told me I was wrong to think that there could be classes in a UML class diagram (thinking of it as a design diagram) to which there would be no equivalent in a data model. He then pressured me to provide a counter-example to prove my point but I just couldn't think of one."
He is right. In the stage of conceptual analysis/conceptual design, those rectangular boxes in a UML class diagram depict "concepts". And whatever the "concept" happens to be, you can always also draw an E/R diagram around it to illustrate (the nature of) that concept, other concepts that relate to it, and what the nature of those relationships is.
From my understanding of UML, it does NOT define what should be in a diagram. I found this example in the IBM site: (image did'nt lode, so here is the link: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-RESTservices/)
Surely, a servlet is not part of a domain model.
A UML class diagram us used to model classes, which are entities that have attributes and methods. IMHO, it doesn't matter if they are part of the domain model or are functional classes that support the application. If you need to show them to the customer, they must be there.
Back in the Dark Ages (mid-1980s), I used Data Flow Diagrams from Structured Analysis a fair amount, and found them very useful.
My current employer loves UML. I normally use BOUML, which doesn't do non-UML drawings.
What is the UML drawing that corresponds to the Data Flow Diagram?
If there isn't one, what is the recommended UML diagram to present the corresponding data?
Probably the closest thing is the activity diagram. It's not quite the same; more influenced by flow chart than dfd. However: you can do some of the useful things in DFDs, e.g. ADs do support concurrency and differentiate control flow from dataflow.
More details on comparisons & differences in this question.
[fwiw, I still use DFDs: they're simpler and more elegant in many circumstances]
hth.
UML 2 has a very good analogue to a data flow diagram:
the "information flow diagram".
Information flow diagrams are explained here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20121118061853/http://www.uml-diagrams.org/information-flow-diagrams.html
Note that UML 2.5 has information flows and information items, but the term "information flow diagram" is not part of official UML 2.5 diagram taxonomy. So formally, you just create a class or component diagram with lots of information flows in it to obtain your "information flow diagram".
I do this all the time, using information items of UML to represent my data.
There is no equivalent model in OOD. The emphasis on DFD's is data separated from the function. This is most helpful when dealing in a procedural way. DFD's scale much better than OOD, if you try to scale out (to the world view) using OOD you end up using Use Case diagrams, which are useful for capturing essences. I loved DFD's they are so high level, and yet can be expanded by opening up a DFD box and calling it level 1 etc.
I am currently in the process of learning the Go programming language, this does not use Objects whatsoever and in some respects I feel that DFD modelling would suit it much better.
I too am looking for a diagram that could do this sort of work. In Go structs are used intensively which are basic data types. You can have a primitive extension method attached to it which resembles OO but in fact if you look at the Assembly code it appears to be syntax sugar for a function, who's first parameter is the struct you wish the function to operate on.
My advice, is that if you're doing OO code, then use OOD. They map better, and do help in the thinking about a system. It takes a while to get your head out of Procedural code, especially if you're coming from programming from the 80's/90's. Once you're in the zone with thinking about objects then the OOD methods work fine. Its not strictly a methodology as there is no straight answer to which parts you use, just thinking in objects I find to be the hardest part. A good book on this is "Object Thinking--David West"...it helps to think about objects first. Once you start its very difficult to stop, you may even like some end up getting trapped in the kingdom of the nouns which is a horrible place to be, because you write endless boiler plate code, just so that the system is described perfectly. This is a form of coding hell which I have stayed clear of for many years.
If you are coding in a language that allows procedural code, or even mixed OO/Procedural, you need to decide your paradigm before you start coding, for example in both Python and Object Pascal (Delphi) you can go either route of OO or procedural coding mixing the code up into a mess of paradigms. This will decide which diagramming tools that should be used, and how you are going to analyze the system.
Recently there have been shifts in Java and c# to provide functional programming techniques. These I have discovered don't fall into either category of programming (OO or procedural). Trying to map functional programming code into an object is a nightmare.
I am sorry I haven't provided an answer, but it depends on what code you are writing.
There is no direct analogue, since UML emphasises OO design wheras DFD comes from structured systems analysis and design (SSAD). In UML a number of diagrams, specifically those in the with interaction diagrams group have characteristics that might model elements of data flow and processing. A Communication Diagram can be used to reflect most aspects of a DFD in general, while a sequence diagram may model specific sequences of flow. If you wanted to suggest DFD semantics then you could use stereotyped objects for data process and data store, and use actors for external entities.
It may be worth noting that Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect, while primarily a UML tool includes DFD as an extension.
Similar diagrams would be:
information flow diagram
communication diagram
sequence diagram
Theoretically, new diagram kinds can be defined in UML, optionally extending of one or more conventional diagram kinds. The canonical diagram kinds defined in UML are essentially defined as a part of the UML metamodel itself.
Formally, a definition of the UML metamodel is provided in the UML specification published by the Object Management Group (OMG), as well as the corresponding meta-metamodel defined of MOF - to which there is also a corresponding specification - moreover as accompanied with the formal OCL specification, as with regards to definitions of constraints in UML models in applications of the OCL language in UML - and then there's the XMI specification, as with regards to specifications for how UML models may be stored in machine-readable format.
Ostensibly, all of these specifications may be combined for application as though "Under the hood" of any single framework for UML modeling - whether in applications of the Ecore subset of the UML metmodel, or in canonical UML.
Reviewing a short academic presentation about Data Flow Diagrams -although somewhat in departing from formal definitions of UML diagram kinds, but nonetheless in a broader context of applications of the MOF meta-metamodel - perhaps the canonical BPMN metamodel - in its conventional, graphical abstract syntax - perhaps BPMN may serve to provide something of an analogy to Data Flow Diagrams?
Of course, modeling practices may vary by vendor and by application environment.
I consider a Data Flow Diagram as a Sequence Diagram, with Data Producers and Data Consumers creating, using and destroying Data objects by means of synchronous and/or asynchronous messages.
I use Enterprise Architect 'Dynamic View' Analysis diagram.
Control = Process
Information = Data Store
In many ways their Analysis diagram is much better than a data flow diagram, as you can also show events in the form of sending and receiving and there is a process symbol too but I prefer Control. It includes object and decision.
I had some questions regarding the structure and behavior of a model, using UML, and the relationship between the two :
Did you find any limitations for UML regarding the specification or understanding of the relationship between structure and behavior?
I was wondering if you have any practical ideas of how one can optimize the relationship between structure and behavior, using UML.
Do you know any UML tools that help understand better this relationship or represent it much easier?
Thanks
Yes:
A sequence diagram is readable at a high level, showing how a transaction involves a few components; but it's not good (not readable) at the detailed level, showing how a transaction involves dozens of methods (method A calls method B, which gets data from methods D and E, and then invokes method F, etc.).
Looking at a class diagram, you might see a based class with several subclasses; this tells you nearly nothing about the behaviour of the classes (it only tells you that they may have some behaviour in common, or at least a common API, plus some individual behaior that's unique to each subclass).
That's a big question. A quick answer is, "Attach text notes to the objects: diagrams aren't sufficient without descriptive text."
No, I don't really; a UML tool help you create UML diagrams (and generate code from the diagrams), but it's up to you how you use it. There was a neat product described in the book titled Real-Time Object-Oriented Modeling (1994) which was an executable model, i.e. the model itself had behaviour, but I know of no UML tool quite like that. The closest I know of is being able to "round trip" between the model and code (i.e. generate code from the model, and the model from code).
Sounds like a homework problem. Wiki can tell you all about UML.
The limitations of UML are the same as any form of communication. The simpler your language, the fewer things you can communicate and the clearer your communications will become. A shape like a square or circle identifies a structure, a line indicates relationship, an arrow indicates movement, or flow. You could enhance this by defining the meaning of other properties, like direction, boldness, color, number count, different shapes. You could incorporate multimedia layers like audio or video, motion, tooltips- but now we're not talking about UML anymore.
My favorite UML tools are a whiteboard and some dry erase markers.
I think that things have changed, regarding UML's usefulness to melculetz.
In Visual Studio 2010, I can define an association relationship, that will generate composite classes. I can specify the multiplicity and class qualifiers. I can also generate classes from the model.
Presently, I am attempting to visually model the phases of a system, in order to visually define the methods for a state-machine object. That is my attempt to integrate structure and behaviour. Check my blog to see how I get on.
Class Analyser visually expresses the behaviour of class objects. Limitation removed.
I think that the answer is to turn your development methods towards MDA. You will generate more classes, but the payoff is in terms of manageability and re-use (where you template your efforts).
I am still working through my model but, I find VS2010 promises good tools for managing the development process. I have yet to investigate UI modelling, but have heard the rumours. I may have it all wrong but I think that, by working with Lightswitch, I may be able to model the UI also.
UML allows you to specify the signature of a method, and group methods into classes, but it says nothing at all about what code you use as implementation. If that's what you mean by "behavior", I don't think UML addresses it at all at the class level.
It's even worse at the UI level. My impression of UML is that it's woefully inadequate for specifying UIs.
I think the effort required to embed everything into UML is greater than or equal to coding the application, with the added burdens of UML tools being poor IDEs and inability to prove correctness of UML the way you can with unit testing.
UML is way oversold, IMO. I consider it a convenient notation for informal communication between developers, nothing more. It has never been and never will be the object oriented equivalent of engineering drawings.