Part I – Viewpoint Modeling
Antonio Vallecillo
Universidad de Málaga
Dpto. Lenguajes y Ciencias de la Computación
Nov 2006
Viewpoint Modeling
ODS, Enterprise Architecture, Viewpoints, Models
Modeling approaches and standards
Model Driven Development and UML
Use of UML for ODP system specifications
ODP in MDA system specifications
Large distributed systems
A system is distributed when it executes spread over a set
of computers
Properties of distributed systems:
Concurrency (efficiency, total execution time)
Scalability and ordered growth
Allow for mobility, replication,
Problems of distributed systems:
No global view of the system
Complex design, management, maintenance and evolution
Communication delays and errors, possible QoS degradation
No global clock (difficult synchronization among processes)
Compatibility and interoperability problems (heterogeneity)
Event races, asynchrony,…
Distributed systems are more difficult to verify and test
Nov 2006
Examples of large distributed
Client-server systems
Web applications (3-4 tiers)
Yahoo!, Google, Airlines portals, Banks portals, etc.
Most commercial systems for retail shops
Include several POS in a shop, shop servers, business server,
warehouse computers, connection to financial services (banks,
credit cards), suppliers, etc.
Process farms
SETI@home, folding@home
P2P systems
(Napster), Emule, KaZaA
Avionics and space systems
Large and heterogeneous systems, many participants, many
kinds of devices, embedded computers, critical operations
Nov 2006
Open systems
A system is open if its specifications are available
This include making available information about:
The standards it conforms to (international or de-facto)
The software architecture of the system
The interfaces required to interoperate with the system, exchange
information with it, and extend it
Open systems are independently extensible
Open systems are different from open source systems
None of these implies the other
Open systems are not necessarily distributed systems
But here we will deal with Open and Distributed Systems
Nov 2006
Goals of ODS
Portability of services and applications
Interoperability between systems and services from
different providers and parties
Access (invocation mechanisms and languages)
Location, Migration, Relocation
Extensibility and evolution
Modularity and decoupling
Nov 2006
Viewpoint modeling
Different stakeholders see the system from different
Managers, developers, maintainers, users, owner
There are too many different concerns that need to be
addressed in the design of an ODS
Functionality, security, distribution, heterogeneity,…
Viewpoint modeling is commonly used in other (more
mature) engineering disciplines
Different maps for a building (floor plants, electricity, water
conductions, heating system, etc.)
Different maps for a city (physical, metro, buses, etc.)
Nov 2006
Viewpoint modeling initiatives
Based on IEEE Std. 1471
This standards defines the main concepts and sets the global
Commonly used in most modeling approaches
UML (structural view, behavioural view)
Web Engineering (Navigation, Presentation, Data, Process, etc.)
Main proposals for Enterprise Architecture
Kruchten’s “4+1 views”
Zachman’s framework
Nov 2006
IEEE Std. 1471 (2000)
“IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of
Software-Intensive System”
Expression of the system and its evolution
Communication among the system stakeholders
Evaluation and comparison of architectures in a consistent manner
Planning, managing, and executing the activities of system
5. Expression of the persistent characteristics and supporting principles
of a system to guide acceptable change
6. Verification of a system implementation’s compliance with an
architectural description
7. Recording contributions to the body of knowledge of software-intensive
systems architecture
“To facilitate the expression and communication of architectures and
thereby lay a foundation for quality and cost gains through
standardization of elements and practices for architectural description.”
Nov 2006
IEEE 1471 Main concepts
Architect: The person, team, or organization responsible for systems
Architectural description: A collection of products to document an
Architecture: The fundamental organization of a system embodied in
its components, their relationships to each other, and to the
environment, and the principles guiding its design and evolution.
System: A collection of components organized to accomplish a
specific function or set of functions.
View: A representation of a whole system from the perspective of a
related set of concerns.
Viewpoint: A specification of the conventions for constructing and
using a view. A pattern or template from which to develop individual
views by establishing the purposes and audience for a view and the
techniques for its creation and analysis.
Nov 2006
IEEE 1471 conceptual model of
architectural description
Nov 2006
IEEE 1471 viewpoints
An AD shall identify the viewpoints selected for use, and include
a rationale for the selection of each viewpoint
Each viewpoint shall be specified by
a) A viewpoint name,
b) The stakeholders to be addressed by the viewpoint,
c) The concerns to be addressed by the viewpoint,
d) The language, modeling techniques, or analytical methods to be used in
constructing a view based upon the viewpoint,
e) The source, for a library viewpoint (the source could include author, date,
or reference to other documents).
A viewpoint specification may include additional information:
Formal or informal consistency and completeness tests to be applied to
the models making up an associated view
Evaluation or analysis techniques to be applied to the models
Heuristics, patterns, or other guidelines to assist in synthesis of an
associated view
Nov 2006
Viewpoint completeness and consistency
An architectural description is consistent if none of its
views imposes contradictory requirements on the rest of
the viewpoints
An architectural description is complete if it contains all
the information required by the different kinds of
Nov 2006
Viewpoint examples
UML views
Requirements, Structure, Behaviour, Deployment
Web Engineering viewpoints
Navegation (hypertext)
Presentation (and adaptation)
Business Logic (processes)
Computation Independent Viewpoint (CIMs)
Platform Independent Viewpoint (PIMs)
Platform Specific Viewpoint (PSMs)
Nov 2006
Krutchen’s “4+1 view model”
Nov 2006
Krutchen views
The logical view is the object model of the design (when an
object-oriented design method is used),
The process view captures the concurrency and
synchronization aspects of the design,
The physical view describes the mapping(s) of the software
onto the hardware and reflects its distributed aspect,
The development view describes the static organization of the
software in its development environment
The scenarios illustrate the system requirements and its basic
functionality by means of use cases
Scenarios are used at the beginning to capture the system
requirements, to identify the mayor elements of the system, and at
the end to illustrate and validate the system design
Correspondences show how elements in one view relate to
elements in other views
Nov 2006
Considerations about the
“4+1 view model”
It prescribes the viewpoints that should compose the
architectural description of a system
Not all views are required in all cases
E.g., for small systems
It is methodology-independent
Although IBM used it as the basis for RUP (v1)
It is also notation-independent
UML supports well its views (apart from the development view)
Nov 2006
Zachman’s framework
Nov 2006
Considerations about the
Zachman Framework
It prescribes the viewpoints that should compose the
architectural description of a system
It is very detailed
Probably too much!
It means at least 36 high-level models for an application
Zachman thinks all views are required in all cases
Even for small systems
It is methodology-independent
The Popkin process tries to fill this gap
It is also notation-independent
Sowa tried to formalize some of the views
Nov 2006
ODP Framework
The Reference Model of ODP (ITU-T Rec X.901-904 |
ISO/IEC 10746) defines a framework for system
specification, covering all aspects of open distributed
“enterprise” context, data, functionality, distribution, technology
It comprises
A structure for system specifications in terms of viewpoints
A set of object-oriented foundation modeling concepts common to
all viewpoint languages
A language (concepts and rules) for expressing each viewpoint
A set of correspondences between the viewpoints
A set of common functions
A set of transparencies
A set of conformance points
A framework for ODP standards
Nov 2006
ODP Viewpoints
Different abstractions of the same system
each abstraction focuses on different concerns
each abstraction achieved using a set of viewpoint concepts and
A viewpoint specification
Is a specification of a system from a specific viewpoint
is expressed in terms of the viewpoint concepts and rules (the
viewpoint language) to describe the concerns and decisions
covered by the viewpoint specification
Is related to, and consistent with, other viewpoint specifications
Nov 2006
ODP Viewpoints—different concerns
Nov 2006
An ODP system specification
- business aspects
- What for? Why? Who? When?
- information
- changes to information
- constraints
- Object configuration
- Interactions between
objects at interfaces
- Mechanisms and services
for distribution transparencies and QoS constraints.
- Hardware and software components
implementing the system
- and correspondences between specifications
Nov 2006
ODP Correspondences
Nov 2006
The enterprise specification
Specifies the roles played by the system in its organizational
An object model of, for example, part of some
social/commercial organization in terms of:
Communities (of enterprise objects)
Enterprise objects
• Roles (fulfilled by enterprise objects in a community)
• Processes (leading to Objectives)
The system is just another object
Nov 2006
Example: A Bank Information System
A bank is composed of branches, spread all over the
The bank’s central office manages and coordinates the
branches’ activities
Each branch has a manager and is responsible to provide
banking services to its customers
Branches may interact with each other and with the bank
central office
Each branch will have an ATM and a main server, and each
branch’s employee will have a computer and a printer
The Bank information system (BIS) will manage all ISrelated issues
Nov 2006
BIS – Enterprise specification
Each branch, and will be specified by a community
Its goal is to “provide banking services to its customers”
Its objects model the branch entities: people (“Joe Smith”, “Lucy
Brown”), computers (PC #123-45, printer #xyz), concrete bank accounts,
Its roles are: branch manager, controller, customer (active),…, or bank
account, money, etc. (passive)
Assignment policies (e.g., the requirements of a person to become a
• Permissions: what can be done, e.g. money can be deposited into an open
• Prohibition: what must not be done, e.g. customers must not withdraw more
than 600 Euros per day
• Obligations: what must be done, e.g. the bank manager must advise
customers when the interest rate changes, customers must present some ID
for withdrawing money.
• Authorizations: accounts of some VIP customers are allowed to have
Nov 2006
BIS – Enterprise specification (ct’d)
Environment contracts: e.g., transactions performed using other banks’
ATMs should have effect within at most 24 hours; information about a
branch’s customers cannot be disclosed to other branches
Accountability: e.g., the branch manager is responsible for authorizing
an overdrawn, but can delegate to the branch’s controller officer
The bank’s central office will be specified by another
It’s goal is to “manage and coordinate the branches’ activities”
It’s objects are…
It’s roles are …
It’s assignment policies are…
It’s policies are…
Environment contracts…
Branches may interact with each other and with the bank
central office
Nov 2006
The information specification
Specifies system behavior to fulfill its enterprise roles,
abstracted from implementation
An object model of the system describing the semantics
of information and of information processing in the
system, in terms of:
Information objects
Invariant schema: predicates on information objects that must
always be true
Static schema: state of information objects at some location in
Dynamic schema: allowable state changes of information objects
Nov 2006
BIS – Information specification
Describes a model with the information types, their relationships, and
constraints on these types and relationships
e.g., a bank account consists a balance and the “amount-withdrawn-today”.
Static schema captures the state and structure of a object at some
particular instance
e.g., at midnight, the amount-withdrawn-today is 0.
An invariant schema restricts the state and structure of an object at all
e.g., the amountwithdrawn-today is less than or equal to 600.
A dynamic schema defines a permitted change in the state and
structure of an object
e.g. a withdrawal of $X from an account decreases the balance by $X and
increases the amount-withdrawn-today by $X.
Static and dynamic schema are always constrained by invariant
$400 could be withdrawn in the morning but an additional $200 could not be
withdrawn in the afternoon as the amount-withdrawn-today cannot exceed $500.
Schemas can also be used to describe relationships or associations
between objects
e.g., the static schema “owns account” could associate each account with a
Nov 2006
The computational specification
Specifies computational structure of the system in terms of
units of functionality (distribution and technology
An object model of the system describing the structure of
processing in terms of:
Computational objects
Interfaces (of computational objects): functions supported
Invocations (by computational objects): functions invoked
Computational bindings
Environment contracts
(e.g., QoS constraints)
Nov 2006
BIS – Computational specification
Objects in a computational specification can be application
objects (e.g. a bank branch) or ODP infrastructure objects (e.g. a
type repository or a trader)
Objects interact at well defined interfaces, using signals,
operations or flows.
BankTeller = Interface Type {
operation Deposit (c: Customer, a: Account, d: Dollars)
returns OK (new_balance: Dollars)
returns Error (reason: Text);
operation Withdraw (c: Customer, a: Account, d: Dollars)
returns OK (new_balance: Dollars)
returns NotToday (today: Dollars, daily_limit: Dollars)
returns Error (reason: Text);
Nov 2006
BIS – Computational specification
Interfaces allow subtyping
Environment contracts capture non functional
Nov 2006
The engineering specification
Specifies the mechanisms and services that provide the
distribution transparencies and QoS constraints required
by the system, independent of platform and technology
An object model of the system describing the
infrastructure supporting the computational structure
Basic engineering objects
(Infrastructure) Engineering objects
Clusters, capsules, nodes
Highly dependent on the CV
BEOs correspond to comp. objects
Channels correspond to Binding
Nov 2006
Grouping concepts
Nov 2006
Channel structure
Nov 2006
Multi-endpoint channel
Nov 2006
The technology specification
Specifies the H/W and S/W pieces from which the system
is built
An object model of the system
defining the configuration of technology objects that comprise the
ODP system, and the interfaces between them
identifying conformance points
Nov 2006
BIS – Technology specification
Technology object types
Types of PCs, servers, ATMs, printers
Types of Operating Systems and Applications (text editors, etc)
Types of connections (LANs, WANs, Intranets, etc.)
Technology selection process
Providers’ selection and contracts
Conformance points
Compliance tests
Implementation, deployment, maintenance, evolution
Deployment plans
Configuration guides
Evolution plans
Nov 2006
ODP Correspondences, Common
Functions and Transparencies
An ODP specification of a system is composed of five views and a
set of correspondences between them
Correspondences do not belong to any view
ODP distinguishes two kinds of correspondences
• Required correspondences
• Correspondence statements
Common functions
An ODP specification can make use of some of the common
functions defined by the RM-ODP. They are “standard”
An ODP specification can implement some of the transparencies
defined by the RM-ODP
The specification should state which ones are used, and how they
are implemented
Nov 2006
Part II – Models, UML and DSLs
Antonio Vallecillo
Universidad de Málaga
Dpto. Lenguajes y Ciencias de la Computación
Model Driven Development (MDD)
An approach to software development in which the focus
and primary artifacts of development are models (as
opposed to programs) and model transformations
(compare with current language-driven approaches, whose firstclass entities are “programs” and “compilers”)
MDD implies the (semi) automated generation of
implementation(s) from models
Modeling languages are key to MDD
Model transformation languages are also modeling languages
Models conform to meta-models
MDA is the OMG’s proposal for MDD, using OMG
MOF y UML allow the definition of new families of languages
Nov 2006
What is a Model?
A description of (part of) a system
written in a well-defined language.
(Equivalent to specification.)
[Kleppe, 2003]
A representation of a part of the function,
structure and/or behavior of a system [MDA, 2001]
A description or specification of the system and its environment
for some certain purpose. A model is often presented as a
combination of drawings and text. [MDA Guide, 2003]
A set of statements about the system. [Seidewitz, 2003]
(Statement: expression about the system that can be considered true or
Nov 2006
What is a Metamodel?
A model of a well-defined language [Kleppe, 2003]
A model of models [MDA, 2001]
A model that defines the language for expressing a model
[MOF, 2000]
A meta-metamodel is a model that defines the language for
expressing a metamodel. The relationship between a
meta-metamodel and a metamodel is analogous to the
relationship between a metamodel and a model.
A model of a modelling language [Seidewitz, 2003]
That is, a metamodel makes statements about what can be
expressed in the valid models of a certain modelling language.
Nov 2006
Four-layers metamodel hierarchy
th e M O F
a p a rtic ula r
use o f m
a n o th e r U M L
m o d el m ’
a n o th e r
use o f m
a n e x e c utio n
X of
pro g ra m P
Nov 2006
a UM L
m o d el m
th e C W M
a Pa sc a l
pro g ra m P
Level M 1
Level M 0
th e U M L
th e S P E M
th e Pa sc a l
g ra m m a r
Level M 2
Level M 3
Four-layers metamodel hierarchy
Nov 2006
OMG standards for modeling
MDA is MDD using OMG standards
• Meta Object facility
• Unified Modeling Language
• Object Constraint Language
Metadata Interchange
• Query/View/Transformation
Nov 2006
MOF Metamodel (simplified)
Nov 2006
UML (2.0)
The Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a general-purpose
visual language for specifying, constructing and documenting
the artifacts of systems.
UML (2.0) defines
Thirteen types of diagrams, for representing:
• The static application structure
¤ class, object, component, deployment, composite structure
• Different aspects of dynamic behavior
¤ use case, statechart, activity, interaction (collaboration, sequence, communication,
interaction overview, timing)
Three ways for organizing and managing the application modules
• models, packages, subsystems
Plus a set of extension mechanisms (UML Profiles)
Nov 2006
UML 2.0: Four parts
Infrastructure – UML internals
More precise conceptual base
Superstructure – User level features
New capabilities for large-scale systems
Consolidation of existing features
Alignment with mature modeling languages (e.g. SDL, HMSC)
Better extension capabilities (profiles)
OCL 2.0 – Constraint Language
Full conceptual alignment with UML
A general purpose query language
Diagram interchange
For exchanging graphical information (model diagrams)
Size and relative position of diagrams elements
Nov 2006
OCL (Object Constraint Language)
A formal language used to describe expressions on UML
Expressions typically specify
invariant conditions that must hold for the system being modeled,
queries over objects described in a model,
pre and post-conditions on actions and operations
constraints on model elements.
When the OCL expressions are evaluated, they do not have side
effects; i.e. their evaluation cannot alter the state of the
corresponding executing system.
OCL expressions can however be used to specify operations /
actions that, when executed, do alter the state of the system.
OCL expressions are all typed
Nov 2006
OCL expressions
context c : Company
inv enoughEmployees: c.numberOfEmployees > 50
Nov 2006
OCL expressions (I)
context Company inv OnlyOneOver50:
self.employee->select(p : Person | p.age > 50)->size()=1
context Person::income : Integer
init: parents.income->sum() * 1% -- pocket allowance
derive: if underAge
then parents.income->sum() * 1% -- pocket allowance
else job.salary -- income from regular job
context Person::getCurrentSpouse() : Person
pre: self.isMarried = true
body: self.mariages->select(m | not m.ended).spouse
context Job
inv: self.employer.numberOfEmployees >= 1
inv: self.employee.age > 21
Nov 2006
OCL expressions (II)
context Person inv:
let income : Integer = self.job.salary->sum() in
if isUnemployed then income < 100 else income >= 100 endif
context Person
def: income : Integer = self.job.salary->sum()
def: nickname : String = ’Little Red Rooster’
def: hasTitle(t : String) : Boolean = self.job->exists(title = t)
context Person::income (d: Date) : Integer
post: result = age * 1000
context Person::birthdayHappens()
post: age = age@pre + 1
context Company::hireEmployee(p : Person)
post: employees = employees@pre->including(p) and
stockprice() = stockprice@pre() + 10
Nov 2006
New (improved) alignments in 2.0
Nov 2006
Language definition mechanisms
Nov 2006
UML 2.0 Profiles
Profiles specialize UML for specific domains
When there is no need to change UML 2.0 metamodel and
semantics, just to extend or customize them
A Profile is a metamodel concept
Defined on metamodel
Used on model
Excellent mechanism for defining MDA “Platforms”
OMG standards:
EAI: Enterprise Application Integration
EDOC: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing
Schedulability, Performance and Time
• UML-RT: UML for Real Time
Nov 2006
UML 2.0 Extension mechanisms
A stereotype defines how an existing metaclass may be extended
It enables the use of platform or domain specific terminology or
notation in place of, or in addition to, the ones used for the
extended metaclass.
UML already defines some of them (<<trace>>, <<device>>,…)
Tag definitions and tagged values
Just like a class, a stereotype may have properties (tag
When a stereotype is applied to a model element, the values of
the properties are referred to as tagged values
They are pairs label/value {label = value}
A profile may define a set of (OCL) constraints on the stereotyped
elements (well-formedness rules of the models defined by the
Nov 2006
You may want to use a UML Profile
Nov 2006
Give a terminology that is adapted to a particular platform or
domain (e.g. capturing some of the EJB terminology: home
interfaces, enterprise java beans, archives)
Give a syntax for constructs that do not have a notation (such
as in the case of actions)
Give a different notation for already existing symbols (e.g.,
use a picture of a computer instead of the ordinary node
Add semantics that is left unspecified in the metamodel (e.g.,
assign priorities to signals in a statemachine)
You may want to use a UML Profile
Nov 2006
Add semantics that does not exist in the metamodel
(such as defining a timer, clock, or continuous time)
Add constraints that restrict the way you may use the
metamodel and its constructs (such as disallowing
actions from being able to execute in parallel within a
single transition)
Add information that can be used when transforming a
model to another model or code (such as defining
mapping rules between a model and Java code)
Example of a UML 2.0 Profile
A profile that allows to
assign colors and
weights to some
elements of a model
« p ro file »
W e ig h ts A n d C o lo rs
« m e ta cla ss»
C la s s
« ste re o typ e »
C o lo re d
c olor: C olor
« m e ta cla ss»
A s s o c ia tio n
« ste re o typ e »
W e ig h e d
w eight: Integer
« e n u m e ra tio n »
C o lo r
-- Constraint:
-- connected elements should
-- be colored in the same color
context Colored inv:
forAll(c | (c.extensionColored->notEmpty()) implies
Nov 2006
Another example
We want to model
the connections of
a system that follows
a star-shaped
« m e ta m o d e l»
M y T o p o lo g y
+ loc alnodes
loc ation: S tring
L o calE d g e
+ target
M a in N o d e
* + s ourc e
context MyTopology::MainNode
inv: self.localnodes ->forAll (n : Node | n.location = self.location)
inv: ->forAll(n : MainNode | n.location <> self.location)
Nov 2006
Steps to define a Profile
Define the conceptual model of the platform or
domain for which we want to define the profile
For each element (concept, association) in the
conceptual model:
Choose one (or more) UML elements that can be used to
represent the element
Define a stereotype
Define the tag definitions of the sterotypes, using the
attributes of the elements of the conceptual model
Define the Profile constraints, based on the
conceptual model constraints and invariants
(association multiplicities, OCL constraints)
Nov 2006
Profile for the Star Topology
T o p o lo g yP ro file
«m etaclass»
C lass
loc ation: S tring
M ain N o d e
«m etaclass»
A sso ciatio n
L o calE d g e
Nov 2006
Profile constraints definitions
context Node -- Connected to exactly one local edge and to no edges
self.baseClass.connection->select(extensionLocalEdge->notEmpty())->size()=1 and
context LocalEgde -- all nodes it connects should have the same location
collect(participant.extensionMainNode.location))-> forAll(l1, l2 | l1 = l2)
inv :
-- a local edge connects exactly one main node
select(participant.extensionMainNode->notEmpty() and
multiplicity.min=1 and multiplicity.max=1)->size()=1
context Egde: -- an edge only connects main nodes
inv :
select(participant.extensionNode->notEmpty())->isEmpty() and
collect(participant.extensionMainNode.location)->forAll(l1, l2 | l1 <> l2)
Nov 2006
Use of a UML Profile
« p r ofile »
« p r ofile »
W e ig h t s A n d C o lo r s
T o p o lo g y P r o file
« a p p ly»
« a p p ly»
M y A p p lic a tio n
«W e ig h e d»
lo c a tio n = ”um a .es ”
« M a in N o d e »
lo c a tio n = ”um a .es ”
w e ig h t= 1 0
« C o lo re d »
«N ode»
Branc h
Nov 2006
1 ..1 0
« L o c a lE d g e , W eig h e d »
« M a in N o d e , C o lo re d »
c o lo r= re d
C e n tr a lO ffic e
MOF extensions vs. Profiles
Choose a MOF extension if:
The domain is well defined, with widely accepted concepts
You do not need to combine applications from different domains
Yo need to “break” the semantics of UML to represent the domain
Choose a Profile if:
The domain is not standard or not stable
Applications from the domain can be combined with applications
from other domains
You can just “extend” the semantics of UML to represent the
domain concepts
Nov 2006
UML 2.0 Profile Example: EJB
Nov 2006
Part III
UML for ODP system specification
Antonio Vallecillo
Universidad de Málaga
Dpto. Lenguajes y Ciencias de la Computación
ITU-T X.906 | ISO/IEC 19793: Use of UML for ODP system
A standard defining:
a set of UML Profiles for expressing a system specification in
terms of viewpoint specifications
possible relationships between the resultant ODP viewpoint
specifications and how they are represented
the structure of a system specification expressed as a set of UML
models using ODP viewpoint profiles
“A standard that enables the use of MDA tools in
developing and maintaining ODP system specifications”
Nov 2006
RM-ODP is notation- and methodology- independent
Which is an advantage (a-priori) ...
...but hampers its widespread adoption and use
Target audiences
UML Modelers
• who need to structure (somehow) their LARGE system specifications
ODP Modelers
• who need some (graphical) notation for expressing their ODP
specifications and tool support
Modeling tool suppliers
• who wish to develop UML-based tools that are capable of expressing
RM-ODP viewpoint specifications.
Nov 2006
This Recommendation | International Standard defines:
a UML based notation for the expression of ODP specifications
an approach for structuring of them using the notation, thus providing the
basis for model development methods
It provides:
The expression of a system specification in terms of RM-ODP viewpoint
specifications using defined UML concepts and extensions
• A set of UML 2.0 profiles (one for each viewpoint)
• A way of using these profiles (structuring rules)
relationships between the resultant RM-ODP viewpoint specifications;
• A way of modelling ODP correspondences
• A profile for correspondences
A way for modelling conformance of implementations to specifications;
• A profile for conformance (reference points, conformance staments, etc.)
relationships between RM-ODP viewpoint specifications and model
driven architectures such as the OMG MDA
Nov 2006
UML4ODP – Document structure
0 Introduction
1 Scope
2 Normative references
3 Definitions
4 Abbreviations
5 Conventions
6 Overview of modelling and system specification approach
7 Enterprise Specification
8 Information Specification
9 Computational Specification
10 Engineering Specification
11 Technology Specification
12 Correspondences specification
13 Modelling conformance in ODP system specifications
14 Conformance and compliance to this document
Annex A UML profiles for ODP languages using ITU-T guidelines for UML profile design
Annex B An example of ODP specifications using UML
Annex C Relationship with MDA®
Annex D Architectural Styles
Nov 2006
UML4ODP Clause 6
6 Overview of modelling and system specification approach
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Overview of ODP concepts (extracted from RM-ODP-1)
6.3 Overview of UML concepts
6.4 Universes of discourse, ODP specs and UML models
6.5 General principles for expressing and structuring ODP system
specifications using UML
6.6 Correspondences between viewpoint specifications
Nov 2006
UML4ODP Clause 6.4
(UoD, ODP specifications and UML models)
U n iv erse
o f D iscou rse
(U O D )
m odels
(see R M -O D P )
sp ecification
ex presses
(U M L 4 O D P )
m o d el
(see U M L sp ec)
The U M L
n otation
Nov 2006
UML4ODP Clause 6.5
(Principles for expressing and structuring ODP specs using UML)
The DSLs used to represent the viewpoint languages are defined
using the UML lightweight extension mechanism (UML Profiles)
The ODP system specification will consist of a single UML model
stereotyped as «ODP_SystemSpec», that contains a set of
models, one for each viewpoint specification, each stereotyped
as «<X>_Spec», where <X> is the viewpoint concerned
Stereotypes are used to represent domain specific
specializations of UML metaclasses in order to express the
semantics of the RM-ODP viewpoint language concerned
Each viewpoint specification uses the appropriate UML profile
for that language, as described in Clauses 7 to 11
Nov 2006
ODP System specification structure
Nov 2006
Enterprise metamodel (excerpt 1)
Nov 2006
Enterprise metamodel (excerpt 2)
Nov 2006
Enterprise Profile: Classifiers
Nov 2006
Information Language metamodel
Nov 2006
Information Profile
Nov 2006
UML4ODP Clause 6.6
Correspondences are key to viewpoint modeling
They form part of the ODP specification of a system
Correspondences are not part of any viewpoint
Correspondences are expressed in UML too
Nov 2006
UML4ODP Clauses 7-11
X <Viewpoint> Specification
X.1 Modelling concepts
• A brief description of the <viewpoint> language
• Summary of the <viewpoint> MOF-metamodel
X.2 UML Profile
• Description on how the language concepts are mapped to UML, by
extending the appropriate metaclasses
• UML specification of the profile
X.3 <Viewpoint> specification structure (in UML terms)
• UML packages and grouping rules
X.4 Viewpoint correspondences for the <Viewpoint> language
• Description of the correspondences to other viewpoints
• Not in UML (clause 12)
Nov 2006
UML4ODP Clauses 12-14
12 Correspondences specification
12.1 Modelling concepts
12.2 UML Profile
13 Modelling conformance in ODP system specifications
13.1 Modelling concepts
13.2 UML profile
14 Conformance and compliance to this document
14.1 Conformance
14.2 Compliance
Nov 2006
Correspondence metamodel
Nov 2006
Correspondence Profile
Nov 2006
Conformance Profile
Nov 2006
UML4ODP Annexes
Annex A:
UML profiles for ODP languages using ITU-T guidelines
for UML profile design
Annex B
An example of ODP specifications using UML
Annex C
Relationship with MDA
Annex D
Architectural Styles
Nov 2006
Annex C: Relation with MDA
Nov 2006
An approach to system development using models as a basis
for understanding, design, construction, deployment, operation,
maintenance and modification
Three essential elements:
specifying a system independently of the platform that supports it,
specifying platforms,
transforming the system specification into one for a particular
choice of platform.
Goals: portability, interoperability and reusability
Prescribes the kinds of model to be used in specifying a system,
how those models are prepared and the relationships between
Nov 2006
What MDA does
Identifies different viewpoints on a system
different abstractions - reflecting different concerns
providing a way of dealing with system complexity
Specifies 3 kinds of viewpoint model for a system:
a computation independent model (CIM): a view of a system that
specifies its function without specifying details of its structure
a platform independent model (PIM): a view of a system that
specifies its computational structure independent of any specific
platform - usable with different platforms of similar type.
a platform specific model (PSM): a view of a system that combines
the specifications in the PIM with a specification of the use of a
particular type of platform.
Specifies types of transformations between models
Nov 2006
What MDA does not do
MDA does not offer:
a definition of the concerns and design decisions to be
covered by each MDA model
language constructs to express the concerns and decisions
covered by each MDA model
…but ODP can offer:
a definition of the concerns and design decisions to be covered
by each MDA model
language constructs to express the concerns and decisions
covered by each MDA model
Nov 2006
ODP Specifications and the MDA
B usiness N eeds
P latform M odel*
C IM *
E n terp rise S p ec
In form ation S p ec
P IM *
T ra n sp a ren cies
C h o ice o f
tech n o lo g y
C om p u tation al S p ec
E n gin eerin g S p ec
T ech n ology S p ec
N o te: T erm s w ith “* ” are fro m M D A G u id e
Nov 2006
ODP and MDA together offer
An IT based approach to system development
that provides a framework for:
Nov 2006
separating and integrating different system
combining skills and experience
assigning responsibilities
automating development
Progress and Targets
Start of Project
1st CD
2nd CD
May 2003
May 2004 SC7 meeting
Dec 2004
May-Oct 2005 SC7 meeting
May 2006 WG19 meeting
Dec 2006 WG19 meeting
Current WD is available as ISO-stds/04-06-01
Nov 2006

MDA: mito o realidad