Advertisement

Translating OMT* to SDL, Coupling Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Formal Description Techniques

  • K. Verschaeve
  • B. Wydaeghe
  • V. Jonckers
  • L. Cuypers
Chapter
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT)

Abstract

This paper presents an automated transition from OMT* (a formal variant of OMT) towards SDL. This work is a partial result from a larger research effort proposing an integrated methodology and toolset based on the combination of Object-Orientation and Formal-Description Techniques. In this project OMT is used as the systems requirements analysis technique and OMT* for for System Design, while SDL (Specification Description Language) is targeted for the design phase. The transition from OMT to OMT* is manual process described by a set of guidelines (Holz et al. 1995) We developed a transformational semantic for OMT*, i.e. a set of transformation rules mapping OMT* constructs to SDL constructs. The translation from OMT* to SDL preserves the logical structure of the specification. This way it is possible to preserve the efforts done in the analysis phase and to make a smooth transition towards design.

Keywords

OMT* SDL Analysis Design Transformational Semantics Software Engineering 

References

  1. G. Abowd, R. Allen, and D. Garlan. Using style to understand descriptions of software architecture. Procs of the 1. ACM SIGSOFT, Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, December 1993.Google Scholar
  2. A. Aimar, A. Khodabandeh, P. Palazzi, and B. Rousseau. A configurable code generator for 00 methodologies. Technical report, Programming Techniques Group, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. R. Bourdeau and B. Cheng. A formal semantics for object model diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, October 1995.Google Scholar
  4. CCITT, Geneva ITU Specification and Description Language SDL Recommendation Z.100 Blue Book.november 1988 Google Scholar
  5. E. Holz, M. Wasowski, D. Witaszek, S. Lau, J. Fischer, P. Roques, K. Verschaeve, E. Mariatos, and J.-P. Delpiroux. The insyde methodology. Deliverable INSYDE/WP1/HUB/400/v2, ESPRIT Ref: P8641, January 1996.Google Scholar
  6. INSYDE. Technical Annex: “Integrated Methods for Evolving System Design”,ESPRIT-III Project P8641, restricted report edition, December 1994.Google Scholar
  7. Z. Navabi. VHDL Analysis and Modeling of Digital Systems. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993.Google Scholar
  8. J. Peeters, M. Jadoul, E. Holz, M. Wasowski, D. Witaszek, and J.P. Delpiroux. Hw/sw co-design and the simulation of a multimedia application. In 7th European Simulation Symposium, October 1995.Google Scholar
  9. J. Rumbaugh, M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, F. Eddy, and W. Lorensen. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. D. Sinclair, G. Clynch, and B. Stone. An object-oriented methodology from requirements to valida-tion. In 2nd International Conference on Object Oriented SystemsDecember 1995 Google Scholar
  11. M. Wasowski, D. Witaszek, K. Verschaeve, B. Wydaeghe, E. Holz, and V. Jonckers. The complete omt*. Deliverable INSYDE/WP1/HUB/300/v3, ESPRIT Ref: P8641, December 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Verschaeve
    • 1
  • B. Wydaeghe
    • 1
  • V. Jonckers
    • 1
  • L. Cuypers
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for System and Software EngineeringVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselBelgium

Personalised recommendations