Logical approach : consistency rules between activity diagram and class diagram

Requirements validation especially models validation has gained quite an interest from a lot of researchers. The research regarding the consistency checking is proliferating from time to time. Several of techniques, approaches and methods have been proposed to cater the issues of requirements incons...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Sulaiman, Noraini
Format:	Thesis
Language:	English English
Published:	2015
Subjects:	QA Mathematics QA76 Computer software
Online Access:	http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/15892/1/LOGICAL%20APPROACH%20CONSISTENCY%20RULES%20BETWEEN%20ACTIVITY%20DIAGRAM%20AND%20CLASS%20DIAGRAM%20%2824%20pgs%29.pdf http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/15892/2/Logical%20approach%20%20consistency%20rules%20between%20activity%20diagram%20and%20class%20diagram.pdf
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	my-utem-ep.15892
record_format	uketd_dc
institution	Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
collection	UTeM Repository
language	English English
advisor	Syed Ahmad, Sharifah Sakinah
topic	QA Mathematics QA76 Computer software
spellingShingle	QA Mathematics QA76 Computer software Sulaiman, Noraini Logical approach : consistency rules between activity diagram and class diagram
description	Requirements validation especially models validation has gained quite an interest from a lot of researchers. The research regarding the consistency checking is proliferating from time to time. Several of techniques, approaches and methods have been proposed to cater the issues of requirements inconsistency especially in models validation. UML modelling has been used widely in software development industry. The varied of UML models that representing the system in different viewpoints but somehow relate to each other make them inextricable from one model to another. Hence, the inconsistency becomes inevitable. The models will be inconsistent if there are overlapping elements of diverse models that depicts the parts of the system are failed to cooperative. In this paper, we focused on the consistency rules between two models, activity and class diagrams by converting the rules into logical predicates and the logical predicates will be evaluated using a sample of case study that consists of the two models.
format	Thesis
qualification_name	Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.)
qualification_level	Master's degree
author	Sulaiman, Noraini
author_facet	Sulaiman, Noraini
author_sort	Sulaiman, Noraini
title	Logical approach : consistency rules between activity diagram and class diagram
title_short	Logical approach : consistency rules between activity diagram and class diagram
title_full	Logical approach : consistency rules between activity diagram and class diagram
title_fullStr	Logical approach : consistency rules between activity diagram and class diagram
title_full_unstemmed	Logical approach : consistency rules between activity diagram and class diagram
title_sort	logical approach : consistency rules between activity diagram and class diagram
granting_institution	Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
granting_department	Faculty of Information and Communication Technology
publishDate	2015
url	http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/15892/1/LOGICAL%20APPROACH%20CONSISTENCY%20RULES%20BETWEEN%20ACTIVITY%20DIAGRAM%20AND%20CLASS%20DIAGRAM%20%2824%20pgs%29.pdf http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/15892/2/Logical%20approach%20%20consistency%20rules%20between%20activity%20diagram%20and%20class%20diagram.pdf
_version_	1747833882296713216
spelling	my-utem-ep.158922022-04-19T11:20:01Z Logical approach : consistency rules between activity diagram and class diagram 2015 Sulaiman, Noraini QA Mathematics QA76 Computer software Requirements validation especially models validation has gained quite an interest from a lot of researchers. The research regarding the consistency checking is proliferating from time to time. Several of techniques, approaches and methods have been proposed to cater the issues of requirements inconsistency especially in models validation. UML modelling has been used widely in software development industry. The varied of UML models that representing the system in different viewpoints but somehow relate to each other make them inextricable from one model to another. Hence, the inconsistency becomes inevitable. The models will be inconsistent if there are overlapping elements of diverse models that depicts the parts of the system are failed to cooperative. In this paper, we focused on the consistency rules between two models, activity and class diagrams by converting the rules into logical predicates and the logical predicates will be evaluated using a sample of case study that consists of the two models. 2015 Thesis http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/15892/ http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/15892/1/LOGICAL%20APPROACH%20CONSISTENCY%20RULES%20BETWEEN%20ACTIVITY%20DIAGRAM%20AND%20CLASS%20DIAGRAM%20%2824%20pgs%29.pdf text en public http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/15892/2/Logical%20approach%20%20consistency%20rules%20between%20activity%20diagram%20and%20class%20diagram.pdf text en validuser https://plh.utem.edu.my/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=96232 mphil masters Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka Faculty of Information and Communication Technology Syed Ahmad, Sharifah Sakinah 1. Acharya, S. & George, C., 2005. Domain Consistency in Requirements Specification. , 414(9). 2. Anon, Developing Statechart Diagrams (Design) - BEA WebLogic Platform 7. Available at: http://flylib.com/books/en/4.336.1.39/1/ [Accessed August 23, 2015a]. 3. Anon, implementation - Component diagram versus Class diagram? - Stack Overflow. Available at: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17390049/component-diagram-versus-class-diagram [Accessed August 23, 2015b]. 4. Anon, Problems with natural language for requirements specification. Available at: http://ifs.host.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Books/SE9/Web/Requirements/NL-problems.html [Accessed October 14, 2014c]. 5. Anon, Specifying Good Requirements. Available at: http://www.jot.fm/issues/issue_2003_07/column7/ [Accessed December 3, 2014d]. 6. Anon, UML - Basic Notations. Available at: http://www.tutorialspoint.com/uml/uml_basic_notations.htm [Accessed August 23, 2015e]. 7. Anon, UML Diagrams for Tour Management \| Programs and Notes for MCA. Available at: http://www.programsformca.com/2012/03/uml-diagrams-for-tour-management.html [Accessed July 7, 2015f]. 8. Anon, What is MSC Malaysia Status? \| Official Portal of MSC Malaysia. Available at: http://www.mscmalaysia.my/isv [Accessed June 30, 2015g]. 9. Barros, J. & Gomes, L., 2000. From Activity Diagrams to Class Diagrams. Workshop Dynamic Behaviour in UML Models Semantic Questions In conjunction with Third International Conference on UML York UK. Available at: http://www.disi.unige.it/person/ReggioG/UMLWORKSHOP/Barros.pdf. 10. Blanc, X., I. Mounier, a. Mougenot, and T. Mens. 2008. Detecting model inconsistency through operation-based model construction. 2008 ACM/IEEE 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp.511–519. 11. Chanda, J., a. Kanjilal, S. Sengupta, and S. Bhattacharya. 2009. Traceability of requirements and consistency verification of UML use case, activity and Class diagram: A Formal approach. 2009 Proceeding of International Conference on Methods and Models in Computer Science (ICM2CS). 12. Easterbrook, S. & Nuseibeh, B., 1995. Managing inconsistencies in an evolving specification. Proceedings of 1995 IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE’95), pp.48–55. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=512545. 13. Egyed, A. & Rey, M. Del, 2001. Scalable Consistency Checking between Diagrams - The VIEWINTEGRA Approach. , pp.387–390. 14. Eriksson, H. & Penker, M., 2000. Business Modeling With UML: Business Patterns at Work, 15. Heimdahl, M.P.E. & Leveson, N.G., 1996. Completeness and Consistency in Hierarchical State-Based Requirements. , 22(6), pp.363–377. 16. Hua-xiao, L.I.U., Shou-yan, W. & Ying, J.I.N., 2013. A Tool to Verify the Consistency of Requirements Concern Model. 17. Ibrahim, Noraini, Rosziati Ibrahim, Mohd Zainuri Saringat, Dzahar Mansor, and Tutut Herawan. 2011. Consistency rules between UML use case and activity diagrams using logical approach. International Journal of Software Engineering and its Applications, 5(3), pp.119–134. 18. Kalibatiene, D., Vasilecas, O. & Dubauskaite, R., 2013. Ensuring Consistency in Different IS Models – UML Case Study. Baltic J. Modern Computing, 1(1-2), pp.63–76. 19. Kamalrudin, M., 2009. Automated Software Tool Support for Checking the Inconsistency of Requirements. 2009 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp.693–697. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=5431705 [Accessed November 20, 2014]. 20. Khan, A.H., 2013. Consistency of UML Based Designs Using Ontology Reasoners, 21. Kotonya, G. & Sommerville, I., 1998. Requirements Engineering: Processes and Techniques, 22. Kozlenkov, A. & Zisman, A., 2002. Are their Design Specifications Consistent with our Requirements ? 23. Li, W., 2011. Toward consistency checking of natural language temporal requirements. 2011 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2011), pp.651–655. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6100148. 24. Liang, Z. & Wu, G., 2004. Consistency Checking of Multiviews Based on Agent. 25. Mens, T., Straeten, R. Van Der & Simmonds, J., 2005. A Framework for Managing Consistency UML Models. Software Evolution with UML and XML, pp.1–31. 26. Nuseibeh, B., 1996. To Be and Not to Be : On Managing Inconsistency in Software Development. , (section 4), pp.164–169. 27. Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S. & Russo, a., 2000. Leveraging inconsistency in software development. Computer, 33(4), pp.24–29. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=839317. 28. Ohnishi, A., Management and verification of the consistency among UML Models. 29. Reggio, Gianna, Maurizio Leotta, Filippo Ricca, and Diego Clerissi. n.d. What are the used UML diagrams ? A Preliminary Survey. 30. Ryndina, K. & Jochen, M.K., Consistency of Business Process Models and Object Life Cycles. 31. Sapna, P.G. & Mohanty, H., 2007. Ensuring consistency in relational repository of UML models. Proceedings - 10th International Conference on Information Technology, ICIT 2007, pp.217–222. 32. Shinkawa, Y., 2006. Inter-model consistency in UML based on CPN formalism. Proceedings - Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, APSEC, pp.411–418. 33. Simmonds, J. et al., 2004. Maintaining Consistency between UML Models Using Description Logic. L’objet, 10(2-3), pp.231–244. 34. Spanoudakis, G. & Zisman, A., 2001. Inconsistency Management in Software Engineering : Survey and Open Research Issues. Handbook of software engineering, pp.329–380. 35. Torre, D., 2015. A systematic identification of consistency rules for UML diagrams. , (March). 36. Torre, D., 2014. On Collecting and Validating UML Consistency Rules : a Research Proposal. , pp.1–4. 37. Torre, D. & Genero, M., 2014. UML Consistency Rules : A Systematic Mapping Study. , (January), pp.1–28. 38. Wills, a.C., S. Cook, a. Kleppe, R. Mitchell, and J. Warmer. 1999. Object Constraint Language. , (May). Available at: http://kar.kent.ac.uk/21716/. 39. Zowghi, D. & Gervasi, V., 2002. The Three Cs of Requirements : Consistency , Completeness , and Correctness. 40. Zowghi, D., Gervasi, V. & McRae, a., 2001. Using default reasoning to discover inconsistencies in natural language requirements. Proceedings Eighth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp.133–140. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=991469.

Logical approach : consistency rules between activity diagram and class diagram

Similar Items