A Semantics of Community Related Concepts in ODP Enterprise Language

  • Mohamed Bouhdadi
  • Youssef Balouki
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 27)


The Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing (RM-ODP) defines a framework within which support of distribution, interoperability, and portability can be integrated. However, other ODP standards have to be defined. We treat in this paper the need for formal notation for community related structural concepts in the enterprise language. Indeed, the ODP viewpoint languages are abstract in the sense that they define what concepts should be supported, not how these concepts should be represented. One approach to define the formal semantics of a language is denotational elaborating of the instance denoted by a sentence of the language in a particular context. Using the denotational semantics in the context of UML/OCL, we define in this paper semantics for the community related concepts defined in the RM-ODP foundations part and in the enterprise language. These specification concepts are suitable for describing and constraining ODP enterprise viewpoint specifications.


Unify Modeling Language Class Diagram Abstract Syntax Foundation Part Denotational Semantic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    ISO/IEC (1994) Basic reference model of open distributed processing-Part1: Overview and guide to use. ISO/IEC CD 10746–1Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO/IEC (1994) RM-ODP-Part2: Descriptive model. ISO/IEC DIS 10746–2Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO/IEC (1994) RM-ODP-Part3: Prescriptive model. ISO/IEC DIS 10746–3Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO/IEC (1994) RM-ODP-Part4: Architectural semantics. ISO/IEC DIS 10746–4Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    OMG (1991) The object management architecture.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO/IEC (1999) ODP type repository function. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 N2057Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO/IEC (1995) The ODP trading function. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bouhdadi M et al (2000) An informational object model for ODP applications. Malaysian J Comput Sci 13(2):21–32Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spivey JM (1992) The Z reference manual. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    IUT (1992) SDL: Specification and description language. IUT-T-Rec. Z.100Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO/IUT (1998) LOTOS: A formal description technique based on the temporal ordering of observational behavior. ISO/IEC 8807Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bowman H et al (1995) FDTs for ODP. Comput Stand Inter J 17(5–6):457–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rumbaugh J et al (1999) The unified modeling language. Addison-Wesley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rumpe B (1998) A note on semantics with an emphasis on UML. Second ECOOP workshop on precise behavioral semantics. Springer, LNCS 1543:167–188Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Evans A et al (1998) Making UML precise. Object oriented programming, systems languages and applications (OOPSLA’98). ACM Press, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Evans A et al (1999) The UML as a formal modeling notation. UML, Springer, LNCS 1618:349–364Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Warmer J, Kleppe A (1998) The object constraint language: precise modeling with UML. Addison-Wesley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kent S et al (1999) A meta-model semantics for structural constraints in UML. In: Kilov H, Rumpe B, Simmonds I (eds) Behavioral specifications for businesses and systems. Kluwer, New York, chapter 9Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Evans E et al (1999) Meta-modeling semantics of UML. In: Kilov H, Rumpe B, Simmonds I (eds) Behavioral specifications for businesses and systems. Kluwer, Norwell, chapter 4Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmidt DA (1986) Denotational semantics: a methodology for language development. Allyn and Bacon, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Myers G (1979) The art of software testing. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Binder R (1999) Testing object oriented systems. Models, patterns, and tools. Addison-Wesley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cockburn A (2002) Agile software development, Addison-Wesley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rumpe B (2004) Agile modeling with UML. Springer, LNCS 2941:297–309Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Beck K (2001) Column on test-first approach. IEEE Soft 18(5):87–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Briand L (2001) A UML-based approach to system testing. Springer, LNCS 2185:194–208Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rumpe B (2003) Model-based testing of object-oriented systems. Springer, LNCS 2852:380–402Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rumpe B (2002) Executable modeling UML. A vision or a nightmare? In: Issues and trends of information technology management in contemporary associations. Seattle, Idea Group, London, pp 697–701Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bouhdadi M et al (2002) A UML-based meta-language for the QoS-aware enterprise specification of open distributed systems. IFIP Series, Springer, Boston, 85:255–264Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bouhdadi M et al (2007) A UML/OCL denotational semantics for ODP structural computational concepts. First IEEE international conference on research challenges in information science (RCIS’07). Ouarzazate, Morocco, pp 259–264Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    France R, Kent S, Evans A, France R (1999) What does the term semantics mean in the context of UML. In: Moreira AMD and Demeyer S (eds) ECOOP workshops 1999, ECOOP’99 workshop reader. Springer, LNCS 1743:34–36Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceMohammed V UniversityIv. Ibn BettoutaMorocco

Personalised recommendations