Uses and abuses of the stereotype mechanism in UML 1.x and 2.0

Henderson-Sellers, B; Gonzalez-Perez, C

Uses and abuses of the stereotype mechanism in UML 1.x and 2.0

Henderson-Sellers, B Gonzalez-Perez, C

Permalink

Publication Type:: Conference Proceeding
Citation:: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 2006, 4199 LNCS pp. 16 - 26
Issue Date:: 2006-01-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2006004151.pdf		930.26 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Henderson-Sellers, B	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Gonzalez-Perez, C	en_US
dc.date.issued	2006-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 2006, 4199 LNCS pp. 16 - 26	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	3540457720	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	9783540457725	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0302-9743	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/1770
dc.description.abstract	Stereotypes were introduced into the UML in order to offer extensibility to the basic metamodel structure by the user and without actually modifying the metamodel. In UML version 1.x, this was accomplished by means of permitting virtual subtyping in the metamodel. However, this facility led many to misuse stereotypes, particularly in places where regular domain-level model-ling would be more appropriate. In version 2.0 of the UML, the portion of the metamodel pertaining to stereotypes was drastically revised. The resulting mechanism is reviewed here and compared with that of version 1.x. From a set theory point of view, the new (2.0) metamodel is unfortunately untenable and the examples used in the OMG documentation unconvincing. This paper out-lines the issues and suggests some possible steps to improve the UML 2.0 stereotype theory and practice. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Artificial Intelligence & Image Processing	en_US
dc.title	Uses and abuses of the stereotype mechanism in UML 1.x and 2.0	en_US
dc.type	Conference Proceeding
utslib.citation.volume	4199 LNCS	en_US
utslib.for	080608 Information Systems Development Methodologies	en_US
dc.location.activity	Genoa, Italy	en_US
dc.location.activity	Genova, ITALY
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Software
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - HCTD - Human Centred Technology Design
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	4199 LNCS	en_US

Abstract:

Stereotypes were introduced into the UML in order to offer extensibility to the basic metamodel structure by the user and without actually modifying the metamodel. In UML version 1.x, this was accomplished by means of permitting virtual subtyping in the metamodel. However, this facility led many to misuse stereotypes, particularly in places where regular domain-level model-ling would be more appropriate. In version 2.0 of the UML, the portion of the metamodel pertaining to stereotypes was drastically revised. The resulting mechanism is reviewed here and compared with that of version 1.x. From a set theory point of view, the new (2.0) metamodel is unfortunately untenable and the examples used in the OMG documentation unconvincing. This paper out-lines the issues and suggests some possible steps to improve the UML 2.0 stereotype theory and practice. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/1770