Conference Paper

Stereotypical Encounters of the Third Kind.

DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45800-X_9 Conference: UML 2002 - The Unified Modeling Language, 5th International Conference, Dresden, Germany, September 30 - October 4, 2002, Proceedings
Source: DBLP

ABSTRACT As one of the UML’s main extension mechanisms, stereotypes play a crucial role in the UML’s ability to serve a wide and growing
base of users. However, the precise meaning of stereotypes and their intended mode of use has never been entirely clear and
has even generated much debate among experts. Two basic ways of using UML stereotypes have been observed in practice: one
to support the classification of classes as a means of emulating metamodel extensions, the other to support the classification
of objects as a means of assigning them certain properties. In this paper we analyze these two recognized stereotype usage
scenarios and explain the rationale for explicitly identifying a third form of usage scenario. We propose some notational
concepts which could be used to explicitly distinguish the three usage scenarios and provide heuristics as to when each should
be used. Finally, we conclude by proposing enhancements to the UML which could support all three forms cleanly and concisely.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many researchers have evaluated different parts of UML™ and have come up with suggestions for improvements to different parts of the language. This chapter looks at UML (version 1.4) as a whole, and contains an overview evaluation of UML and how it is described in the OMG™ standard. The evaluation is done using a general framework for understanding quality of models and modeling languages in the information systems field. The evaluation is based on both practical experiences and more theoretical evaluations of UML. Based on the evaluation, we conclude that although being an improvement over it is predecessors, UML still has many limitations and deficiencies, both related to the expressiveness and comprehensibility of the language. Although work is well underway for the next version of UML (version 2.0), not all of the important problems seem to be addressed in the upcoming new version of the language.
    UML and the Unified Process, 01/2003: pages 1-22; Irm Press.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Stereotypes in object-oriented software development can be perceived in various ways and they can be used for various purposes. As a consequence of these variations, assessing quality of stereotypes needs to be purpose-specific. In this paper we identify eight types of stereotypes and provide a set of criteria for assessing quality of stereotypes. The criteria for each type are formed by a set of properties that characterizes its stereotypes. The identified types are based on the purpose of each stereotype (its role in designs) and its expressiveness. We identified the types of stereotypes and their properties in an empirical way by investigating stereotypes from UML profiles used in industrial software development. The properties are intended to be used in our further research for developing guidelines for creating and using stereotypes in a more efficient way.
    Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, 8th International Conference, MoDELS 2005, Montego Bay, Jamaica, October 2-7, 2005, Proceedings; 01/2005
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper proposes an extension of the UML 2.0 profiling mechanism. This extension facilitates a language designer to introduce composite concepts as separate conceptual and notational elements in a modelling language. Composite concepts are compositions of existing concepts. To facilitate the introduction of composite concepts, the notion of stereotype is extended. This extension defines how a composite concept can be specified and added to a language’s metamodel, without modifying the existing metamodel. From the definition of the stereotype, rules can be derived for transforming a language element that represents a composite concept into a composition of language elements that represent the concepts that constitute the composite. Such a transformation facilitates tool developers to introduce tool support for composite concepts, e.g., by re-using existing tools that support the constituent concepts. To illustrate our ideas, example definitions of stereotypes and transformations for composite concepts are presented.
    Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, 8th International Conference, MoDELS 2005, Montego Bay, Jamaica, October 2-7, 2005, Proceedings; 01/2005

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 20, 2014