A Practical Use Case Modeling Approach to Specify Crosscutting Concerns

  • Tao YueEmail author
  • Huihui Zhang
  • Shaukat Ali
  • Chao Liu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9679)


Use case diagrams together with use case specifications are commonly used to specify system requirements. To reduce imprecision, ambiguity, and incompleteness in use case specifications, an approach with template and restriction rules is often recommended to achieve better understandability of use cases and improves the quality of derived analysis models. However, when crosscutting concerns are modeled together with non-crosscutting concerns as use case models, resulting use case models often result in cluttered diagrams and redundant information in use case specifications. Therefore, the overall reusability of the use case models is usually low. To tackle this, we extend a general use case approach, named as RUCM, for modeling crosscutting concerns, along with a weaver to automatically weave aspect use case models into their corresponding base model to facilitate, e.g., automated requirements analysis. The extended approach has been evaluated with three real-world applications from communication, maritime and energy domains and aviation. We compared the modeling effort required to model three sets of crosscutting concerns from the real-world applications, when using and not using the extended RUCM approach. Results show that more than 80 % of modeling effort can be saved.


Use case modeling Reuse Crosscutting concern Aspect 



This work was supported by the MBT4CPS project (No. 240013) funded by the Research Council of Norway under the category of Young Research Talents of the FRIPO funding scheme. Tao Yue and Shaukat Ali are also supported by the Zen-Configurator project (No. 240024), the EU Horizon 2020 project U-Test (, the MBE-CR (No. 239063) and the Certus SFI.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    The Stanford Parser version 1.6.
  4. 4.
    Alencar, F., Moreira, A., Castro, J., Silva, C., Mylopoulos, J.: Using aspects to simplify iModels. In: 14th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 335–336. IEEE, Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ali, S., Briand, L.C., Hemmati, H.: Modeling robustness behavior using aspect-oriented modeling to support robustness testing of industrial systems. Softw. Syst. Model. 11(4), 633–670 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alistair, C.: Writing Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anthonysamy, P., Somé, S.S.: Aspect-oriented use case modeling for software product lines. In: EA-AOSD 2008, p. 5. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown, E.K., Brown, K., Miller, J.: Syntax: A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure. Psychology Press, Abingdon (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chitchyan, R., Rashid, A., Rayson, P., Waters, R.: Semantics-based composition for aspect-oriented requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Aspect-Oriented Software Development, pp. 36–48. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacobson, I., Ng, P.-W.: Aspect-Oriented Software Development with Use Cases Reading. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mussbacher, G., Amyot, D., Weiss, M.: Visualizing aspect-oriented requirements scenarios with use case maps. In: REV 2006. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sampaio, A., Rashid, A., Chitchyan, R., Rayson, P.: EA-Miner: towards automation in aspect-oriented requirements engineering. In: Rashid, A., Akşit, M. (eds.) Transactions on AOSD III. LNCS, vol. 4620, pp. 4–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sillito, J., Dutchyn, C., Eisenberg, A.D., de Volder, K.: Use case level pointcuts. In: Odersky, M. (ed.) ECOOP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3086, pp. 246–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Somé, S.S.: Supporting use case based requirements engineering. Inf. Softw. Technol. 48(1), 43–58 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sousa, G., Soares, S., Borba, P., Castro, J.: Separation of crosscutting concerns from requirements to design: adapting the use case driven approach. In: Early Aspects, pp. 93–102 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering: from System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Wiley, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yue, T., Ali, S., Zhang, M.: RTCM: a natural language based, automated, and practical test case generation framework. In: Proceedings of the 2015 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pp. 397–408. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yue, T., Briand, L.C., Labiche, Y.: A systematic review of transformation approaches between user requirements and analysis models. Requirements Eng. 16(2), 75–99 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yue, T., Briand, L.C., Labiche, Y.: Facilitating the transition from use case models to analysis models: Approach and experiments. TOSEM. 22(1), No. 5 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yue, T., Briand, L.C., Labiche, Y.: aToucan: An Automated Framework to Derive UML Analysis Models from Use Case Models. TOSEM. 24(3), No. 13 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang, G., Yue, T., Wu, J., Ali, S.: Zen-RUCM: A Tool for Supporting a Comprehensive and Extensible Use Case Modeling Framework. In: Demos/Posters/StudentResearch@ MoDELS, pp. 41–45. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang, H., Yue, T., Ali, S., Liu, C.: Facilitating requirements inspection with search-based selection of diverse use case scenarios. In: BICT (2015, in press)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang, M., Yue, T., Ali, S., Zhang, H., Wu, J.: A systematic approach to automatically derive test cases from use cases specified in restricted natural languages. In: Amyot, D., Fonseca i Casas, P., Mussbacher, G. (eds.) SAM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8769, pp. 142–157. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Simula Research LaboratoryOsloNorway
  2. 2.University of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.Beihang UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations