International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security

International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security (국제컴퓨터통신보호논문지학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Model Multiplicity (UML) Versus Model Singularity in System Requirements and Design

  • Received : 2021.04.05
  • Published : 2021.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A conceptual model can be used to manage complexity in both the design and implementation phases of the system development life cycle. Such a model requires a firm grasp of the abstract principles on which a system is based, as well as an understanding of the high-level nature of the representation of entities and processes. In this context, models can have distinct architectural characteristics. This paper discusses model multiplicity (e.g., unified modeling language [UML]), model singularity (e.g., object-process methodology [OPM], thinging machine [TM]), and a heterogeneous model that involves multiplicity and singularity. The basic idea of model multiplicity is that it is not possible to present all views in a single representation, so a number of models are used, with each model representing a different view. The model singularity approach uses only a single unified model that assimilates its subsystems into one system. This paper is concerned with current approaches, especially in software engineering texts, where multimodal UML is introduced as the general-purpose modeling language (i.e., UML is modeling). In such a situation, we suggest raising the issue of multiplicity versus singularity in modeling. This would foster a basic appreciation of the UML advantages and difficulties that may be faced during modeling, especially in the educational setting. Furthermore, we advocate the claim that a multiplicity of views does not necessitate a multiplicity of models. The model singularity approach can represent multiple views (static, behavior) without resorting to a collection of multiple models with various notations. We present an example of such a model where the static representation is developed first. Then, the dynamic view and behavioral representations are built by incorporating a decomposition strategy interleaved with the notion of time.

Keywords

References

  1. Tolk, A., Diallo, S., Padilla, J., Herencia-Zapana, H.: Reference Modelling in Support of M&S-Foundations and Applications. J Simulation 7, 69-82 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/jos.2013.3
  2. Guarino, N., Guizzardi, G., Mylopoulos, J.: On the Philosophical Foundations of Conceptual Models. In: 29th EJC International Conference on Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases (EJC). Lappeenranta, Finland (2019)
  3. Brooks, F.: No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering. Computer Volume, IEEE Computer 20 (4), 10-19 (1987) https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.1987.1663532
  4. Insfran, E., Pastor, O., Wieringa, R.: Requirements Engineering-Based Conceptual Modeling. Requirements Engineering 7(2), 61-72 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1007/s007660200005
  5. Sharma, R., Sharma, S., Singh, S.: Future Challenges and Opportunities of Systems and Software Engineering Processes. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies 2(5), 2176-2179 (2011)
  6. Pressman, R.S., Maxim, B.R.: Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach, Eighth Edition. McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY (2015)
  7. Oliver, R.: Why the Software Industry Has a Love-Hate Relationship with UML Diagrams. 19 October 2017. Accessed 12 January 2021. https://creately.com/blog/diagrams/advantages-anddisadvantages-of-uml/
  8. Fairbanks, G.: Losing the Battle with Complexity. 28 February 2016. Accessed 12 January 2021. https://www.georgefairbanks.com/blog/losing-thecomplexity-battle/
  9. Chren, S., Buhnova, B., Macak, M., Daubner, L., Rossi, B.: Mistakes in UML Diagrams: Analysis of Student Projects in a Software Engineering Course. In: Mistakes in UML Diagrams (2019). DOI: 10.1109/ICSE-SEET.2019.00019
  10. Boberic-Krsticev, D., Tesendic, D.: Experience in Teaching OOAD to Various Students. Informatics in Education 12(1), 43-58 (2013) https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2013.04
  11. Peleg, M., Dori, D.: The Model Multiplicity Problem: Experimenting with Real-Time Specification Methods. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26(8), 742-759 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1109/32.879812
  12. Lin, K., Shen, C., Chao, W.: Enriching UML from Model Multiplicity to Model Singularity with Structure-Behavior Coalescence. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). Miyazaki, Japan (2018). DOI: 10.1109/SMC.2018.00340
  13. Egyed, A.: Integrating Architectural Views in UML, Technical Report USC/CSE-99-TR-514, University of Southern California, Center for Software Engineering, March 10, 1999.
  14. IEEE: Recommended Practice for Architectural Description for Software-Intensive Systems. IEEE, New York, NY (Oct. 2000)
  15. Whittle, J., Jayaraman, P., Elkhodary, A., Moreira, A., Araujo, J.: MATA: A Unified Approach for Composing UML Aspect Models Based on Graph Transformation. In: Katz, S., Ossher, H., France, R., Jezequel J.M. (eds.) Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development VI. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5560, pp. 191-237. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03764-1_6, 191-237
  16. Kruchten, P.: Architectural Blueprints. The "4+1" View Model of Software Architecture. IEEE Software 12(6), 42-50 (1995) https://doi.org/10.1109/52.469759
  17. Wang, R.: Search-Based System Architecture Development Using a Holistic Elopment Using a Holistic Modeling Approach. Missouri University of Science and Technology. Doctoral Dissertations 2256, Fall 2012.
  18. Al-Fedaghi, S.: Modeling in Systems Engineering: Conceptual Time Representation. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 21(3), 153-164 (2021). doi.org/10.22937/IJCSNS.2021.21.3.21
  19. Al-Fedaghi, S.: UML Modeling to TM Modeling and Back. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security 21(1), 84-96 (2021). doi.org/10.22937/IJCSNS.2021.21.1.13
  20. Al-Fedaghi, S.: Advancing Behavior Engineering: Toward Integrated Events Modeling. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security 20(12), 95-107 (2020). doi.org/10.22937/IJCSNS.2020.20.12.10
  21. Al-Fedaghi, S., BehBehani, M.: Thinging Machine Applied to Information Leakage. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 9(9), 101-110, (2018). DOI: 10.14569/IJACSA.2018.090914
  22. Al-Fedaghi, S., Alrashed, A.: Threat Risk Modeling. In: Second International Conference on Communication Software and Networks, pp. 405-411, Singapore, 26-28 Feb, (2010). doi.org/10.1109/ICCSN.2010.29
  23. Al-Fedaghi, S., Fiedler, G., Thalheim, B.: Privacy Enhanced Information Systems. In: The 15th European-Japanese Conference on Information Modeling and Knowledge. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Tallinn, Estonia, May 16-20, 2005. In: Kiyoki, Y., Lastname, X. (eds.) Information Modeling and Knowledge Bases XVII. Book, vol. 136, pp. 94-111. IOS Press, (2006). ISBN 978-1-58603-591-4
  24. Al-Fedaghi, S.: Conceptual Temporal Modeling Applied to Databases. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA), 12(1), 524-534 (2021). DOI: 10.14569/IJACSA.2021.0120161
  25. Al-Fedaghi, S.: UML Modeling to TM Modeling and Back. IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security 21(1), 84-96 (2021). DOI: 10.22937/IJCSNS.2021.21.1.13
  26. Al-Fedaghi, S.: Conceptual Software Engineering Applied to Movie Scripts and Stories. Journal of Computer Science, 16(12), 1718-1730 (2020). DOI: 10.3844/jcssp.2020.1718.1730
  27. Al-Fedaghi, A., Alahmad, H.: Process Description, Behavior, and Control. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security 15(7), 124-133 (2017)
  28. Bogost, I.: Unit Operations: An Approach to Videogame Criticism. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2008)
  29. Siegfried, S.: Understanding Object-Oriented Software Engineering. IEEE Press, New York (1996).