Advertisement

A Novel Automatic Transformation Method from the Business Value Model to the UML Use Case Diagram

  • Nassim KharmoumEmail author
  • Sara Retal
  • Soumia Ziti
  • Fouzia Omary
Conference paper
  • 25 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1104)

Abstract

Currently, in the field of the software engineering industry, end-users have become extremely requiring; consequently, this industry knew a critical evolution. In this vein, the model generation becomes an awakening and an essential step for many approaches among them we cite the Model Driven Architecture (MDA) approach. The Object Management Group (OMG), the founder of the MDA approach, proposes three different abstraction levels; which are the higher level, average level, and lower level. Until now, most research deal with the transformation at the average and the lowest MDA levels, while ignoring the higher level, which precisely contains the requirements’ models. Therefore, our aim in this paper is to construct a sound and more consistent higher MDA level for e-business information systems by automatically generating a higher level of functional requirements model from the Business Value model. Our source Business Value model is represented by the E3value model, whereas the UML Use Case diagram expresses the generated model. The transformation is performed automatically using ATLAS Transformation Language (ATL).

Keywords

Model-Driven Architecture Automatic transformation Computation Independent Model Meta-model E3value Business Value model UML Use Case diagram 

References

  1. 1.
    OMG-MDA: MDA Guide version 2.0. OMG (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blanc, X., Salvatori, O.: MDA en action: Ingénierie logicielle guidée par les modèles. Editions Eyrolles (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bousetta, B., El Beggar, O., Gadi, T.: A methodology for CIM modelling and its transformation to PIM. J. Inf. Eng. Appl. 3(2), 1–21 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Skersys, T., Danenas, P., Butleris, R.: Extracting SBVR business vocabularies and business rules from UML use case diagrams. J. Syst. Softw. 141, 111–130 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gordijn, J., Akkermans, J.: Value-based requirements engineering: exploring innovative e-commerce ideas. Requir. Eng. 8(2), 114–134 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    OMG-UML: Unified Modeling Language version 2.5.1. OMG (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I., Valduriez, P.: ATL: a QVT-like transformation language. In: Companion to the 21st ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications, pp. 719–720. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pijpers, V., Gordijn, J.: Bridging business value models and process models in aviation value webs via possession rights. In: 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2007, p. 175a. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schuster, R., Motal, T.: From E3-value to REA: modeling multi-party e-business collaborations. In: IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing, CEC 2009, pp. 202–208. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y.: An e-business model ontology for modeling e-business. In: Proceedings of Bled 2002, p. 2 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCarthy, W.E.: The REA accounting model: a generalized framework for accounting systems in a shared data environment. Account. Rev. 57(3), 554–578 (1982)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fatemi, H., van Sinderen, M., Wieringa, R.: E3value to BPMN model transformation. In: Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, pp. 333–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghamarian, A.H., de Mol, M., Rensink, A., Zambon, E., Zimakova, M.: Modelling and analysis using groove. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 14(1), 15–40 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fatemi, H., Van Sinderen, M., Wieringa, R.: Value-oriented coordination process modeling. In: International Conference on Business Process Management, pp. 162–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Kinderen, S., Gaaloul, K., Proper, H.A.: Bridging value modelling to archimate via transaction modelling. Softw. Syst. Model. 13(3), 1043–1057 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lankhorst, M.M., Proper, H.A., Jonkers, H.: The architecture of the ArchiMate language. Enterprise. Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling, pp. 367–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dietz, J.L.: Understanding and modelling business processes with DEMO. In: International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, pp. 188–202. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rhazali, Y., Hadi, Y., Mouloudi, A.: A methodology of model transformation in MDA: from CIM to PIM. Int. Rev. Comput. Softw. 10(12), 1186–1201 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    OMG-BPMN: Business Process Model and Notation version 2.0. OMG (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rhazali, Y., Hadi, Y., Mouloudi, A.: Model transformation with ATL into MDA from CIM to PIM structured through MVC. Procedia Comput. Sci. 83, 1096–1101 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krasner, G.E., Pope, S.T., et al.: A description of the model-view-controller user interface paradigm in the smalltalk-80 system. J. Object Oriented Prog. 1(3), 26–49 (1988)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Elallaoui, M., Nafil, K., Touahni, R.: Automatic transformation of user stories into UML use case diagrams using NLP techniques. Procedia Comput. Sci. 130, 42–49 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cohn, M.: User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Conforto, E.C., Amaral, D.C.: Evaluating an agile method for planning and controlling innovative projects. Proj. Manag. J. 41(2), 73–80 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Briscoe, T., Boguraev, B.: Computational Lexicography for Natural Language Processing. Longman, White Plains (1989)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schmid, H.: Treetagger-a language independent part-of-speech tagger. Institut für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, Universität Stuttgart, vol. 43, p. 28 (1995)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bouzidi, A., Haddar, N., Abdallah, M.B., Haddar, K.: Deriving use case models from BPMN models. In: 2017 IEEE/ACS 14th International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA), pp. 238–243. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brambilla, M., Cabot, J., Wimmer, M.: Model-driven software engineering in practice. Synth. Lect. Softw. Eng. 1(1), 1–182 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kharmoum, N., Ziti, S., Omary, F.: An analytical study of the CIM to PIM transformation in MDA. In: International Workshop on Computing Sciences, WCOS 2016, Kenitra, Morocco, pp. 14–19 (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kharmoum, N., Ziti, S., Yassine, R., Elbouchti, K., Abdelaziz, R.W.: Analytical study of requirements models construction and their transformations in MDA approach. In: 5th Edition of the JDSIRT Conference on Information Systems, Networks and Telecommunications, Meknes, Morocco, p. 12. JDSIRT (2018)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kharmoum, N., Elbouchti, K., Ziti, S., Omary, F.: Descriptive analysis of business value models’ transformation in MDA approach. In: 3rd Edition of the International Conference Scientific Days in Applied Sciences, Larache, Morocco, JSSA 2019, p. 63 (2019)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    OMG-MOF: Meta Object Facility version 2.5. OMG (2015)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    OMG-XMI: XML Metadata Interchange version 2.5.1. OMG (2015)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    OMG-OCL: Object Constraint Language version 2.4. OMG (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kharmoum, N., Ziti, S., Rhazali, Y., Omary, F.: An automatic transformation method from the E3value model to IFML model: an MDA approach. J. Comput. Sci. 15(6), 800–813 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rhazali, Y., Hadi, Y., Mbarki, S.: Transformation des modeles depuis CIM vers PIM dans MDA: Transformation automatique depuis le cahier de charge vers l’analyse et la conception. Noor Publishing (2018)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kriouile, A., Gadi, T., Balouki, Y.: CIM to PIM transformation: a criteria based evaluation. Int. J. Comput. Technol. Appl. 4(4), 616 (2013)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bouquet, F., Sheeren, D., Becu, N., Gaudou, B., Lang, C., Marilleau, N., Monteil, C.: Formalismes de description des modèles agent (2015)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kirikova, M., Finke, A., Grundspenkis, J.: What is CIM: an information system perspective. In: East European Conference on Advances in Databases and Information Systems, pp. 169–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Merks, E., Paternostro, M.: EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework. Pearson Education, Boston (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nassim Kharmoum
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sara Retal
    • 1
  • Soumia Ziti
    • 1
  • Fouzia Omary
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, Intelligent Processing Systems & Security Team, Faculty of SciencesMohammed V University in RabatRabatMorocco

Personalised recommendations