up until now, I always ignored the UML Metamodel, but now that I've taken a closer look at it, I have a question which isn't answered by the standard books which I have at hand.
The Metamodel describes elements and their associations per diagram. So, it defines for instance what kind of relationship an actor can have with a use case in a use case diagram.
But does it also describe the relationships / associations between diagrams? Or maybe better expressed between elements of different diagrams?
Example:
In a class diagram, I define how I structure my code. This is defined by the metamodel
In a deployment diagram, I specify how I deploy artifacts to execution nodes. Also defined by the metamodel
But does the metamodel also define relationships with which I can specify how I derive the artifact (which I deploy, maybe a .jar file) from my code?
Diagrams are only a view onto the model. So you can show any arbitrary part of your model. Preferably you create a number of different structural diagrams to explain your model structure. Those are later augmented with behavioral diagrams which show how certain elements collaborate.
tl;dr UML is not about diagramming.
Yes, metamodel explains how various elements of a model can be connected. Diagrams itself represent poets puff the model and it is also described in a metamodel. While it's not always clearly shown how to actually represent that, for example each behavioral model represent behavior of something. What can have this type of behaviour is part of metamodel.
Let's look at specific example.
Consider State Machine. Metamodel defines which elements can have State Machines (e.g. A class). So if you have a certain class you can draw a diagram of State Machine owned by this class. How to show that this SM is owned by that class is a different story but that is also possible with UML.
Then on a state machine you can have activities which according to metamodel have to be owned by the same class etc.
One remark - it's spread over the whole specification. But look at definitions of elements like classifier, behaviour, state machine etc. That's where your answer is.
Related
I know that I can build a Class diagram from a database E-R Diagram (tables become classes, tables properties are the classes properties...)
But I'm looking for informations (or step by step like) to create a class diagram from a use case description (or even a sequence diagram).
(All I found now is that the sequence diagram objects becomes classes and the stimuli messages methodes)
Any idea ?
I used to TA in software engineering, and both create a class diagram from a textual definition as well as create a class diagram from a sequence diagram were regular exam questions.
Creating class diagrams from a specification should be covered in your lectures since its one of the most important things to learn. This site explains the workflow quite well in my opinion.
It is important to note, that in software engineering there never is just one solution. You can tackle problems in multiple ways each with their own benefits and problems. The most important step to learning is doing it yourself, just looking at solutions won't help you.
For creating class diagrams from a sequence diagram:
Objects are instance of classes, in most sequence diagrams there is only one instance of any given class. Therefore "objects become classes" is not technically correct but the right intention.
Messages represent method calls on the receiving object, ergo you need to add these methods to the class of the receiving object.
Any communicating classes need to be associated, else they could not call their methods.
We put focus on only modelling the information you can derive from the sequence diagram, e.g. in most cases you do not know multiplicities of associations.
I am making a structural diagram in UML using classes and objects and wondered if I was doing it correctly.
Would the following (on the right) be the correct way to represent an object diagram of the left-hand side class diagram?
No. You are using a Generalization which is not the case. Either leave that out or use a stereotyped dependency <<instanceOf>>. Note that this is no standard as per UML specs. But those specs leave you the freedom to express is this way.
The class from which the object is instantiated is already shown in the name objectName::className.
From Annex A p. 683 of the UML 2.5 specs, which describes the organization of diagram types:
NOTE. This taxonomy provides a logical organization for the various major kinds of diagrams. However, it does not preclude mixing different kinds of diagram types, as one might do when one combines structural and behavioral elements (e.g., showing a state machine nested inside an internal structure). Consequently, the boundaries between the various kinds of diagram types are not strictly enforced.
Can someone give me an example of when is better to use State Diagram and when Class Diagram. Tnx in advance!
For what type of software system would you use state machine diagrams to model functional requirements?
For what type of software system is data modeling via UML class diagrams suitable?
A class diagram shows classes in their relation and their properties and methods.
A state diagram visualizes a class's states and how they can change over time.
In both cases you are talking about diagrams which are only a window into the model. The class relations define how the single classes relate to each other. A state machine can be defined for each class to show its states. In embedded systems you use state machines almost all the time but there are also state machines for business applications (you can do this if that).
This question reveals a very common misunderstanding. There are only thirteen types of diagram in UML. They're not used to describe different types of system, but to describe different aspects of the system you are documenting. Which you pick in any given situation is more a question of style, what you want to emphasize.
It is better to use state diagrams if you want to focus on how the system can go into different states in response to various events. Activity diagrams are better if you want to focus on activities being carried out in some order, sequence diagrams are better if you want to show messages being sent between entities.
The above are all types of diagram which show behaviour. Class diagrams are a different type of beast altogether, and show how structures of things fit together (as do package diagrams and component diagrams).
It might be worth pointing out that while UML does not include a "requirement" element type, the related modelling language SysML does. If you want to express a number of functional requirements on the form "the system shall" in a model, SysML is a better fit.
A state diagram shows the behavior of the class. A class model shows the relationship between two or more classes. It includes its properties/attributes...
A state is an allowable sequence of changes of objects of a class model.
If I create a conceptual class diagram such that each class captures 'name' and 'attributes' but not 'operations', have I not basically created what would be otherwise considered an ERD? I'm trying to gain an understanding of what the differences are between creating a conceptual class diagram as I have described versus calling it a ERD? If these are still two different animals, can somebody please explain what the differences are?
The class diagram contains just the classes in your object model with eventual links/relationships connecting diagram elements. However those links don't necessarily correspond to physical relationships like in an ERD diagram, but instead they represent logical connections.
The class diagram is just the object model of your application and does not contain any persistence-specific information. When you think about the class diagram forget about the database or any other storage you may use.
The ERD diagram on the other side, is a persistence-specific diagram which display the entities (tables) existing in a (most often) relational database. It also displays the physical relations (and cardinalities) between those tables and all other database-specific information. The ERD diagram can sometimes look similar to the class diagram, but that doesn't mean is the same as a class diagram.
There´s little difference in the expressiveness of both (if we just focus on the attributes, classes and associations part) if you use Extended Entity Relationship diagrams (the most common case nowadays)
True, they look very different at the graphical level since they use different symbols for the elements but the "semantics" are quite similar. They both allow inheritance (again, I´m talking about EER), n-ary associations, association classes, ...
The ER diagrams I've seen (most frequently ERWin IE notation) have focused on the design for a database. They are concerned with primary keys, foreign keys, have unnamed relationships, and usually have no generalization / specialization.
A good UML conceptual class diagram, on the other hand, is not concerned with keys, reflects the problem domain, and has association-end properties that at least hint at the semantics of why things are related. This helps communicate the domain down to more junior developers so they don't have to guess.
It depends on the situation where you may not like to do the ER-D. But imagine if you have a seperate data layer where the data logic is handled. In this case many details of data shall not be shared with the application layer. And you class diagram shall not go beyond the application layer. I must stress that both the diagrams are not equal. And there are situations where you need to do both, mainly in multi-tier architecture, and there are situations where you may be able to just use class diagram; e.g. single-tier application.
I strongly advocate the view that class diagram doesn't abrogate the E-R diagram.
Design class diagrams are made from conceptual model and collaboration diagrams.
Design class diagrams include:
Classes, associations and attributes
Methods
Types of attributes
Navigability
Dependencies
IMO In Simple terms
Class diagram depicts the details of how will the system work.
ER diagram depicts how the system persists 'state' as a blue print.
Goal:
Detail out state and behavior of the components(classes) of the system.
Design 'efficient', flexile system(less coupling and more cohesion) using Solid principles.
Goal:
Design a blue print of how to 'efficiently' persist the state of the system.
Consider what kind of queries will be made (read vs write), are there any joins required
consequently figure out the columns for indexing
Use Normalization, ACID properties.
PS: notice the both the diagram tries to efficiently do thing in their on respect.
Im a bit uncertain about the relation between the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and the different modelling perspectives (conceptual, specification and impelementation) endorsed by (R)UP among other OOA/D methodologies.
From what I understand the same type of diagram using the same notation can have different meaning depending on the perspective* being used. For instance the class diagram can represent an abstraction of real world systems / phenomena in the conceptual perspective and when perspective is later changed to specification/implementation the class diagram is used to abstract constructs of a computer program.
Questions:
1) It is my understanding that certain rules exist for a UML class diagram in general. For instance that a class can extend another class but that it can't extend an association. Where are the entities of the class diagram and the rules about how they can relate defined? Does it all take place at the M2 layer in the UML metamodeling architecture
(see wikipedias illustratio of metamodel architecture)?
2) A related question. The way I see it, the general rules for a specific diagram span the modelling perspectives (again, it is absurd for a class to extend an association), but the different modelling perspectives will superimpose certain meaning to a particular type of diagram. For instance an association in the class diagram of the domain model (conceptual perspective) will inherently be bidirectional whereas it can be either bi- or unidirectional in the class diagram of the design model (specification / implementation perspective).
In the scenario just described the rule superimposed limits the properties of an association. Is it a correct assumption that rules superimposed by perspectives will always be a subset/limitation of the rules defined by the uml metamodel and never a superset?
Are these rules/limitations defined by the perspectives formalized (in a way similar to the metamodel) or are they mere conventions described in the OOA/D litterature?
* Perspectives are explained in paragraph 10.8: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=r8i-4En_aa4C&printsec=frontcover&hl=da&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0
1) Your first question is quite clear. The rules that you are looking for are called a "metamodel". And yes, they are documented as what the OMG (the creators of UML, basically) call "MOF" or "meta-object facility". It is an OMG standard.
2) Your second question is a bit more confusing. I'll try to answer here. Diagrams are just views on an underlying model. The model is overarching and all-encompassing, if you wish. But diagrams are not. The perspectives that you mention are related to diagrams. But the model that underlies is multi-perspective, in the sense that all the elements form a connected mesh, without isolated "islands". Does this make sense? :-)