Cluster Computing

, Volume 22, Supplement 5, pp 12351–12362 | Cite as

Model transformation using logical prediction from sequence diagram: an experimental approach

  • M. MythilyEmail author
  • M. L. Valarmathi
  • C. Anand Deva Durai


Recent trends on software development life cycle (SDLC) deal much on automatic processes that leads to time and cost reduction. In the era of model driven architecture (MDA), unified modeling language (UML) models are the backbone of any developing software. A minimum of 5 models out of 14 models need to be designed to completely visualize any software. The proposed logical prediction model transformation automates the transformation of two models from the sequence diagram. Each model carries same information of the other models in different aspects to visualize the requirement constraints in different dimensions. In order to take the advantage of this, sequence diagram has been considered as a pioneer from MDA approach to generate other models automatically. Information such as elements, attributes, relationships, etc., of the sequence diagram are extracted using XML object model parser. The extracted information from sequence diagram combined with the pre-defined logical prediction rules, generates the elements and relationships of other models. The outcome of transformed information is rendered by PlantUML structure to produce the desired model. The experiment undertaken has been focused to generate class diagram and activity diagram based on the pre-defined logical prediction rules. It also confirms the transformation process proposed, generates suitable and appropriate class and activity diagrams. This transformation process has a scalability to generate any model from the other model based on proper logical prediction rules. This automation proposal eases the task of designer in design engineering phase of the SDLC.


Model transformation XMI UML models Logical prediction 


  1. 1.
    Yau, S.S., Tsai, J.: A survey of software design techniques. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., vol. SE-12 (1986)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Freeman, P., Hart, D.: A science of design for software-intensive systems. Commun. ACM 47(8), 19–21 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broad, J.: Chapter 5—system development life cycle (SDLC). In: Book Risk Management Framework. A Lab-Based Approach to Securing Information Systems, pp. 39–45 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prat, N., Akoka, J., Comyn-Wattiau, I.: An MDA approach to knowledge engineering. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 10420–10437 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ZadahmadJafarlou, M., Moeini, A., YousefzadehFard, P.: New process: pattern-based model driven architecture. Sciverse Sci. Direct Procedia Technol. 1, 426–433 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rodríguez, A., Fernández-Medina, E., Trujillo, J., Piattini, M.: Secure business process model specification through a UML 2.0 activity diagram profile. Decis. Support Syst. 51, 446–465 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bollati, V.A., Vara, J.M., Jimenez, A., Marcos, E.: Applying MDE to the (semi)automatic development of model transformations. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55, 699–718 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Castro, V., Marcos, E., Vara, J.M.: Applying CIM-to-PIM model transformations for the service-oriented development of information systems. Inf. Softw. Technol. 53, 87–105 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Asztalos, M., Lengyel, L.: A metamodel-based matching algorithm for model transformations. In: IEEE 6th International Conference on Computational Cybernetics, Stara Lesna, Slovakia (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sanchez Cuadrado, J., Guerra, E., de Lara, J.: A component model for model transformations. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 40, 1042–1060 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rodríguez, A., de Guzmán, I.G.R., Fernández-Medina, E., Piattini, M.: Semi-formal transformation of secure business processes into analysis class and use case models: an MDA approach. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52, 945–971 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sánchez-González, L., García, F., Ruiz, F., Piattini, M.: A Case Study About the Improvement of Business Process Models Driven by Indicators, Software System Model. Springer, Berlin (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frankova, G., Seguran, M., Gilcher, F., Trabelsi, S., Dorflinger, J., Aiello, M.: Deriving business processes with service level agreements from early requirements. J. Syst. Softw. 84, 1351–1363 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aguilar Saven, R.S.: Business process modelling: reviewand framework. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 90, 129–149 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aburub, F., Odeh, M., Beeson, I.: Modelling non-functional requirements of business processes. Inf. Softw. Technol. 49, 1162–1171 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heidari, F., Loucopoulos, P., Kedad, Z.: A Quality-Oriented Business Process Meta-Model. Springer, Berlin (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tarhana, A., Turetkenb, O., Reijersc, H.A.: Business process maturity models: a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 75, 122–134 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Sousa, T.C., Snook, C.F.: A proposal for extending UML-B to support a conceptual model. Innov. Syst. Softw. Eng. 7, 293–301 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    L’opez-Sanz, M., Acuña, C.J., Cuesta, C.E., Marcos, E.: Modelling of Service-Oriented Architectures with UML. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 194, pp. 23–37 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Penil, P., Sanchez, P., de la Fuente, D., Barba, J., Lopez, J.C.: UML/MARTE Methodology for Automatic Systemc Code Generation Of OPENMAX Multimedia Applications. In: 16th Euromicro Conference on Digital System Design (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shousha, M., Briand, L.C., Fellow, Yvan, L.: A UML/MARTE model analysis method for uncovering scenarios leading to starvation and deadlocks in concurrent systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 38, 354–374 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rodrigues, A.W.O.: An MDE approach for automatic code generation from UML/MARTE to OpenCL. Comput. Sci. Eng. 15, 46–55 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Caivano, D., Abrahao, S., Insfran, E., Carsí, J.A.: Assessing the influence of stereotypes on the comprehension of UML sequence diagrams: a family of experiments. Inf. Softw. Technol. 53, 1391–1403 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    OMG, UML 2.2 Superstructure Specification, Document Formal/2009-02-02 (2009).
  25. 25.
    W3C, XML Schema Part 0: Primer Second Edition (2004).
  26. 26.
    Bernauer, M., Kappel, G., Kramler, G.: Representing XML schema in UML—a comparison of approaches. In: Koch, N. et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Engineering (ICWE). LNCS, vol. 3140, Springer, pp. 440–444 (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Routledge, N., Bird, L., Goodchild, A.: UML and XML schema. In: Zhou, X. (ed.) Thirteenth Australasian Database Conference (ADC2002). ACS, Melbourne, Australia (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bolloju, N., Schneider, C., Sugumaran, V.: A knowledge-based system for improving the consistency between object models and use case narratives. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 9398–9410 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Robbins, J.E., Redmiles, D.F.: Cognitive support, UML adherence, and XMI interchange in Argo/UML. In: Information and software Technology Conference (2000)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    David, F., Martin, P.A., Crane, M.L.: Rendering UML Activity Diagrams as Human-Readable Text. Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division Information Technology Laboratory, November 2007Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    PlantUML Tutorial.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Sciences TechnologyKarunya UniversityCoimbatoreIndia
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Information TechnologyGovernment College of TechnologyCoimbatoreIndia
  3. 3.College of Computer ScienceKing Khalid UniversityAbhaKingdom of Saudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations