this question is regarding Object Oriented Analysis and design ,UML
in object oriented analysis final result is the class diagramme of system am i right?
in object oriented design final result is implement the class diagramme in code am i right ?
what is the use of UML diagramms in OOAD?
in object oriented analysis i have seen use these UML diagrams - use case diagram,sequence diagram to create the class diagram
are above diagrams are the only ones that used in analysis(create the class diagramme)?
in object oriented design i have seen used these UML diagrams - class diagram , sequential diagram to used to implement the code(code of the classes)
are above diagrams are the only ones that used in design to implement class diagram in code?
or depending on need other type of UML diagrams are use in object oriented analysis and object oriented design?
in object oriented analysis final result is the class diagramme of system am i right?
No. The result of the analysis is a model that represents the problem domain. Any diagram used is just a means to reflect the model to its readers.
in object oriented design final result is implement the class diagramme in code am i right ?
No. The result is an architectural model which is based on the analysis model. You might be able to generate code from this model. At least a coder can take this model to transform it to code.
what is the use of UML diagramms in OOAD?
UML diagrams are used to visualize the model of the problem domain. You can live without the diagrams, but they support communication between humans.
You will use different diagram types depending on what part(s) of the model you will shed light on.
UML is the toolbox used by OOAD to express the different design phases in a common and understandable language.
Has you know the 3 main phases of the OOAD involve different kind of UML diagrams
Object-oriented Analysis (OOA): Use cases and object models ( class diagram, package diagram).
Object-oriented Design (OOD): Software architecture using design patterns and architectural patterns ... expressed using UML.
Object-oriented Modeling (OOM): used by OOD and OOA. It is separated in two types of analysis:
Structural diagrams: static representation diagrams use cases, packages and classes diagrams
Behavioral diagrams using dynamic diagrams like sequence diagram, collaboration diagram etc.
Object-oriented modeling (OOM) is a common approach to modeling
applications, systems, and business domains by using the
object-oriented paradigm throughout the entire development life
cycles. OOM is a main technique heavily used by both OOA and OOD
activities in modern software engineering.
See the dedicated Wikipedia page for details.
Related
Suppose I draw an UML class diagram representing the class and interface structure of my project. Are there any methods to assess the UML design before actually creating those classes and interfaces?
Example: It is known that the diagram below will lead to diamond problem. And must be changed or handled.
UML is a powerful design language. It is programming language independent (although it has a bias towards class based languages) and thus allows to design things that are not implementable in some languages but trivial in some other languages.
The real question is what you expect from assessment:
syntactic and semantic validity of the model with regard to its compliance with the UML specifications? In your diagram, you use void type, which does not belong to the primitive types of UML. It's a language dependent type.
completeness and accuracy of the model, with an eye on potential ambiguities and missing informations? In your diagram, Animal.eats() may for example be {abstract}. But is the absence of this information an indication that it's not abstract ?
evaluation of the class design, such as for example its complexity, the deepness of the inheritance, the intensity of relations, mutual dependencies, etc... ? But how can this help to spot a bad design, when some domains are just inheriently complex ?
feasibility? UML allows for multiple inheritance, but does not precisely define the semantics behind it. For instance, in C++ you can very well cope with this design with the virtual inheritance of Animal. In Java, multiple inheritance is forbidden and this would not be implementable as such (you would need to alter this model to introduce an interface and use interface realization). Now here, we will not reopen the debate about MI.
A systematic review of of diagrams is done here everyday. The goal of such assessment is to see if the notation is consistent with the UML specification, and eventually with the constraints of the chosen UML profile. There are some research papers that explore the automation of such consistency assessments.
Design is currently not highly automated; There is therefore no systematic method to assess the design as far as I know.
There are some general metrics (e.g. CK metrics) and some of these can be calculated for UML class diagrams (e.g. only 3 out of 6 CK metrics for example). Metrics are not assessments, but they can help an analyst in this task.
Are Entity Relationship Diagrams(ERD's) considered a type of UML diagram or are they a separate thing?
I have another idea. I think we should look in-depth.
When we are talking about ERD (Entity Relationship Diagram), we are talking about Entity Relationship Modeling.
It is firstly introduced by Peter Chen (1976). He has two famous articles on Entity Relationship Modeling (see first and second articles)
He talked about Entity-Relationship Modeling (not Entity-Relationship Diagram). It is ER Model.
There is another paper in 1975 about Modeling the Real World System.
ER Modeling is (see reference, the second paragraph):
In software engineering an ER model is commonly formed to represent
things that a business needs to remember in order to perform business
processes. Consequently, the ER model becomes an abstract data model
that defines a data or information structure that can be implemented
in a database, typically a relational database.
Diagramming Convention Techniques
When we are talking about ER Modeling, there many diagramming convention techniques.
Chen Notation (some links need translation)
IDEF1X Notation
Bechman Notation
Martin notation
(min, max)-notation of Jean-Raymond Abrial in 1974
UML class diagrams
And other notations (see reference)
All of above notations are using for ER Modeling or Data Modeling.
There is no earth-shattering difference between UML notation and other ER notations. They all model the most important elements of data models.
Finally: UML is a set of standard graphical tools to model the whole or parts of a project. We can use UML (Class Diagram) for ER Modeling and name them our ER Models or ERDs. So we can say: this is my ERD in UML Notation.
ERD is it's own thing. It's not in UML specification. You can download specification PDF from the link.
UML is a common notation/language for object oriented modeling and it includes a multitude of diagram types. ERD is a diagram for data modeling (attributes and relationships). Some structural UML diagrams are fairly similar in what you can model, but the concept is different.
Types of UML diagrams:
This was the first search on Google:
Key Difference: UML stands for Unified Modeling Language. ERD stands for Entity Relationship Diagram. UML is a popular and standardized modeling language that is primarily used for object oriented softwares. Entity-Relationship diagrams are used in structured analysis and conceptual modeling
UML, as an object oriented notation, have nothing to data modeling. Lots times I read about attributes as data columns. It is not true. We can put to an attribute simple data or any complicated other object.
For data modeling (database, relational database) we use ERD diagram, for storing data in object systems we can use ORM (object relational model), it is mixed UML/Data model, if we use pattern like a active table or active record.
I have a different opinion to Jarek. There is nothing stopping you modelling data using UML. Remember that UML is not new at its foundations, It represents the evolution of a number of types of diagrams which had already existed (ERDs included), and an attempt to standardise these notations to create a consistent language for the communication of system design.
ERDs are used to model (largely) a static model of a system. They show (unsurprisingly) the relevant entities in a system and articulate the manner in which they are related.
In UML Class Diagrams were born from ER diagrams to represent the relationship between classes. If you consider that (in its simplest form) a class is the combination of data and methods, by ignoring methods you are left with a data model (albeit with a syntax which varies from traditional ERDs).
So ERDs correlate to Class Diagrams in UML if you choose to exclude methods and those aspects of the model designed to indicate data protection.
However UML itself serves a broader purpose, as a family of modelling tools that collectively can be used to model both the static and dynamic nature of a system.
It includes diagrams that facilitate for a more complete model of a system than you can get through describing its entities (or data):
Class Diagrams for static object relationship modelling,
Object Diagrams for dynamic mnodelling of object/instance relationships
State Machine/Diagrams for modelling how a system transitions through states
Sequence and Collaboaration diagrams to demonstrate how components of a system will work together
Activity Diagrams (replacing flow charts) to demonstrate/document imperative flow
and a few others I'll leave you to investigate (check out http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/umlDiagrams.htm for an overview)
I have a different opinion to Andy. In UML Class Diagrams you describe relationship between two classes. With ERD you can talk about relationships between more than two entities.
This is the reason why the cardinality in Chen-Diagrams are on opposite site compared to UML Class Diagrams. You have to think about number of relations for every single entity.
Let's take a look at one simple example:
In this little example every supplier must be in relationship with at least one delivery. But there can be items not being delivered and projects without any deliveries.
Can someone explain me the difference between class diagram during analysis and design?
So far, I understand that the class diagram of design would be the real class diagram, with all methods and attributes (ready to become code), but what about analysis? Do I have to do a class diagram for every sequence diagram? Do I have to add methods and attributes at the design stage already ? Or only connection?
The UML class model is produced and refined iteratively as the understanding of the system increases. There's only one model for your system, although different diagrams may outline different aspects and level of details of this model.
Typically you would start with the domain model based on the requirements (e.g. use cases, user stories, statement of work, user interviews, etc.):
Top priority is to get an overview. So the first sketch would identify the domain classes and how they relate to each other.
You would then enrich this initial understanding by outlining in the diagram the key properties and methods that are essential to the understanding of the domain.
You would then enrich the model with more detailed design diagrams as you design your solution. So you would add any classes required for the implementation (e.g.user interface classes, application controllers, persistence layers, etc.).
Design diagrams are used to get a shared understanding about the software structure within the development team. So they should be easy to understand (i.e.focus on important aspects and not necessarily be cluttered with too many details that would anyhow have to be implemented in code and quickly be outdated if you don't have an army of analysts to update the model).
If you'd use an UML tool able to generate code or if you are contractually obliged to provide all the details in UML form, you would further refine the model with a fully detailed implementation diagram. Attention: for scholar work it is frequent that the teacher asks for a design diagram but expects in reality an implementation diagram.
We have 3 major types of class diagram in Object Oriented Methodologies.
Class Diagrams in Requirement (Domain Modeling)
Analysis Class Diagrams
Design Class Diagrams
Main difference of these class diagrams is their Abstraction.
In Domain Modeling, we use Class Diagrams. BUT, we do not use any Inheritance or any Interfaces, or any preforming analysis on the classes. We just write so little attributes of classes (about 3 attributes). we don't write any methods of classes. WHY? because of Abstraction. Main goal of Domain Modeling is modeling the domain. And detect Which classes should be in problem domain of system.
In Analysis modeling, we use class diagram. Classes in analysis is more detailed than classes in Domain. But it is not the final specification.
In Analysis, we determine Analysis Classes. We can use Inheritance between them. We can write their attributes and methods in detail. BUT, this phase is done by System Analysts. (Not System Designers or Programmer). Their profession is both knowing the Business Logics and Software Techniques. So they can write analysis classes in more detailed than Domain. However, they can not write very detailed as System Designers can.
In the other hand, we can use some analysis patterns to determine our Analysis Classes. For example RUP introduce Boundary/Control/Entity pattern. If we decided to use an existing analysis pattern, we can use the guidelines exist in the pattern documentations.
The guideline of Boundary/Control/Entity about the abstraction of classes are in this reference. In this pattern we should write only attributes for Entity classes and write only methods for Control classes and write attributes and methods for Boundary classes.
However, In my idea, we can follow the guideline or not. We can write more attributes and methods for analysis classes. What is happening? If our System Analyst try to write more detailed attributes or methods, what's happening:
I think that 1) our system analyst is not system analyst. maybe system designer. 2) we don't need their details. It is just time consuming for analysis phase. 3) ONLY if our analysis and design team are the same, or we combine analysis and design (like Agile Methodologies) the details in Analysis can be logical and useable.
In Design modeling, we use class diagram, this type of class diagram should be the final specification and should contain all attributes and methods. This classes are not conceptual. we can use all OOD technologies, Design Pattern and etc.
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.
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.