SEKE 2012 Proceedings - Knowledge Systems Institute

Once all fo rk and decision nodes have been created, the
details of incoming edges and flow types can be used for the
insertion of a join or merge node. The algorithm of tree
traversal is used to determine the type and level of flows where
the root node is INITIAL object node. Abstract State Machines
or ASM [14] is used to describe the algorithm as follows:
TraverseTree(node, flow) =
let f = new(Flow) in
info:= flow.info
if IsJoinNode(node) or IsMergeNode(node) then
f.info:= CalculateFlow(node)
else
if IsInitialNode(node) then
f.info:= f.info + "N"
if IsForkNode(node) then
f.info:= f.info + "F"
if IsDecisionNode(node) then
f.info:= f.info + "D"
let c = true
if count(node.incomingEdges) > 1
and IsJoinNode(node) = false
and IsMergeNode(node) = false then
forall e in node.incomingEdges do
if IsNull(e.flow) then c:= false
if c = true then
TraverseTree(CreateJoinMerge(node), f)
else
forall e in node.outgoingEdges do
e.flow:= f
TraverseTree(e.target,f)
To reduce complexity when inserting join and merge nodes,
it is suggested that the flows with the deepest level and the
same type should be determined first. Fig. 11 shows the result
of the insertion of two merge nodes into Fig. 10b.
ND 1D 2D 3 ND 1D 2D 3 ND 1D 2D 4
ND 1D 2
[known problem
and solution]
C
[else]
ND 1D 2D 3 ND 1D 2
[known problem
and solution]
Audit and Record
ND 1D 2D 3 ND 1D 2D 4
C
Communicate Result
[else]
Figure 11. Example of mapping merge pattern
[problem statement
rectified]
[problem statement
rectified]
ND 1D 2D 3 ND 1D 2D 3 ND 1D 2D 4
ND 1D 2
Audit and Record
ND 1D 2
ND 1
ND 1J 1 ND 1J 1
Communicate Result
VI. CONCLUSION
The design of ADL, a domain specific language for UML
activity diagrams presented in this paper, covers four elements
required to co nstitute a DSL: structure, constraints,
representation, and behavior. The ADL metamodel illustrates
the language structure. Constraints can be defined as validation
and verification rules described in [13], serving the purposes of
preventing data inconsistency, and fortifying conformance to
UML specification, respectively. Representation can be
visualized with a digraph. Behavior is accomplished by means
of QVT applied for model-to-model transformation.
Process algebra and metamodel-based technology are
applied to develop the language, which is unambiguous and has
a sufficiently high-level abstraction to describe general activity
diagrams. Compared to previous research an d existing tools
mentioned earlier, the proposed approach could reduce the
complexity of scripts, and source lines of code. Compared to
manual method, the proposed method could reduce resource
consumption, in addition to prevent modeling mistakes and
incorrect notation usages.
The trouble ticket scenario is selec ted as an example to
demonstrate how to transform the underlying ADL script to the
semantic model with control nodes that can be further
processed to visualize the target activity diagram, eventually.
The method presented in this paper is capable of generating
intermediate activity diagrams. Future research work could be
the enhancement of the method to sup port structural activity
diagrams which can describe interruptible regions, events, and
features related to the programming languages.
REFERENCES
[1] D. Flater, P. A. Martin, and M. L. Crane, Rendering UML Ac tivity
Diagrams as Human-Readable Text, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, 2007.
[2] PlantUML, http://plantuml.sourceforge.net, January 2012.
[3] yUML, http://yuml.me, Febuary 2012.
[4] OMG, Unified Modeling Language TM (OMG UML): Superstructure
Version 2.3, Object Management Group, Inc., 2010.
[5] D. Ghosh, DSLs in Action, Manning Publications Co., 2011.
[6] A. Prinz, M. Scheidgen, and M. S. Tveit, “A Model-Based Standard for
SDL”, Springer-Verlag Heidelberg, SDL 2007, LNCS 4745, p p. 1-18,
2007.
[7] T. Gjøsaeter, I. F. Isfeldt, and A. Prinz, “Sudoku – A Language
Description Case Study”, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, SLE 2008,
LNCS 5452, pp. 305-321, 2009.
[8] OMG, Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification Version 2.0,
Object Management Group, Inc., 2006.
[9] D. Grune and C. Jacobs, Parsing Techniques: A Practical Guide, 2nd ed,
Springer, 2008.
[10] J. C. M Baet en, T. Basten, and M. A. Reniers , Process Algebra:
Equational Theories of Commnicating Processes, Cambridge University
Press, 2010.
[11] OMG, Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation
Specification Version 1.1, Object Management Group, Inc., 2011.
[12] J. Bang-Jensen and G. Gutin, Di graphs: Theory, Algorithms and
Applications, Springer-Verlag, 2007.
[13] C. Narkngam and Y. Limpiyakorn, “Domain Specific Language for
Activity Diagram”, in R amkhamhaeng Journal of Engineering, vol. I,
2012.
[14] E. Börger and R. Stärk, Abstract State Machines: A Method for High -
Level System Design and Analysis, Springer-Verlag Heidelberg, 2003.
729