1. A Systematic Review on
the Definition of UML Profiles
Jesús Pardillo
University of Alicante, Spain
jesuspv@dlsi.ua.es
www.jesuspardillo.com
✗
✔

2. Jesús Pardillo:A Systematic Review of UML Profiles. MODELS, Oslo, 6th Oct. 2010 2
UML Profiles

3. Jesús Pardillo:A Systematic Review of UML Profiles. MODELS, Oslo, 6th Oct. 2010 3
Some UML Profiles
• Softw. Requirements, Quality, Rationale
• Data Mining: Time Series, Clustering, etc.
• Softw. Personalisation
• Dataflows
• Databases
• Security

4. Jesús Pardillo:A Systematic Review of UML Profiles. MODELS, Oslo, 6th Oct. 2010 4
Some Pitfalls
• Lack of Formal Semantics
• Lack of Expressiveness
• Notational
• Syntactical
• Large UML metamodel
• Lack of Tooling (OCL, XMI, Querying)
• Lack of Customisability
• Trilingualism
• Lack of Completeness and Consistency
• Non-uniform Access

5. UML 2.0
Publication Trend
‣ Raw Numbers:
‣ 39 Articles
‣ 406 Stereotypes
‣ 46 Distinct Metaclasses
‣ 300 Tags (~0.7 Tags / Stereotype)
‣ Median By Profile:
‣ 9 Stereotypes
‣ 4 Distinct Metaclasses
‣ Domains:
arch, bp, db, reqs, sec, tmp, ui, web, ...
5Jesús Pardillo:A Systematic Review of UML Profiles. MODELS, Oslo, 6th Oct. 2010

6. !"#$%&'()*+
!'',-$./,*$!'()*+
!'()*+
!'(/0$1+
!'(/0$12&%(()*+
!'$)%+
!%(3&'$+
!##)'0&()*+
!##)'0&()*45&##+
6,7&/0)%+
45&##+
45&##08,%+4)55&")%&()*+
4)99,*$+
4)9-)*,*$+
4)*#$%&0*$+
4)*$%)5:5);+
<&$&=1-,+<,-,*>,*'1+
<,-5)19,*$+
.5,9,*$+
.*?9,%&()*+
.*?9,%&()*@0$,%&5+
A*3)%9&()*:5);+
A*#$&*',B-,'08'&()*+
A*$,%&'()*+
A*$,%3&',+
4)99?*0'&()*2&$7+
C,##&D,+
C)>,5+E&9,>.5,9,*$+
E)>,+F"G,'$:5);+
F"G,'$E)>,+
F-,%&()*+
2&'H&D,+
2)%$+
2%090(/,=1-,+
2%)-,%$1+
I,5&()*#70-+
B$&$,C&'70*,+
B$%?'$?%,>!'(/0$1E)>,+
B$%?'$?%,>45&##08,%+
=09,./,*$+
=%&*#0()*+
J#&D,+
J#,4&#,+
6Jesús Pardillo:A Systematic Review of UML Profiles. MODELS, Oslo, 6th Oct. 2010
ProfilesbyMetaclass

7. !"#$%#&'()*+)
,-.-&/."0%1&'()2+)
3'&4.'&'()2+)
!"#51'()2+)
61-&7."#51'()8+)
49.''&'()*:+)
;&<95=>&1-'()?+)
45><51&1-'()?+)
45><5'%-&,-7@"-@7&'()
2+)
!@A%9%.7=451'-7@"-'()
2+)
7Jesús Pardillo:A Systematic Review of UML Profiles. MODELS, Oslo, 6th Oct. 2010
... and by Language Unit

8. !"
#!"
$!"
%!"
&!"
'!"
(!"
)*+,-."
/01..2.")*+34+2."
5-6271*+,-."
)8940417:/,-.678*6."
;6162<
1*=4-2."
/,>
?,.462;678*6872."
@2?0,:>
2-6."A.2/1.2."
/,>
?,-2-6."
B962-C2C" A<D"
8Jesús Pardillo:A Systematic Review of UML Profiles. MODELS, Oslo, 6th Oct. 2010
Extended Metaclasses by Language Unit

9. ‣ Iconography by Stereotype:
‣ Class: 40%
‣ Properties: 28%
‣ Associations: 17%
‣ Proportions By Profile:
‣ ½ with Iconography
(¼ Icon by Stereotype)
‣ ¾ with Tagging
(⅓ Tag by Stereotype)
‣ ½ with (visible) Constraints
(?? Constraint by Stereotype)
9Jesús Pardillo:A Systematic Review of UML Profiles. MODELS, Oslo, 6th Oct. 2010
Iconography, Tagging, and Constraining

10. Presentation Trend
10Jesús Pardillo:A Systematic Review of UML Profiles. MODELS, Oslo, 6th Oct. 2010
!"
#"
$"
%"
&'"
&("
&)"
'&"
'*"
'+"
#!"
##"
,!!-,!&" ,!'-,!#" ,!*-,!(" ,!$-,!+" ,!)-,!%"
./01234/5"6.7"
89:5"687"
;/430<=/25"6;7"
><?032"@/03ABCD5"6>7"
EF3G?305"6E7"
H22"9<AD4?3FA4D5"697"
I?<J2/D"

11. ‣ Behavioural Profiling:
✓Profile Diagram
✓Formal Semantics
‣ Structural Profiling:
✓All Constraints
✓Metamodel
✓Template
11Jesús Pardillo:A Systematic Review of UML Profiles. MODELS, Oslo, 6th Oct. 2010
Presentation Patterns by Concern

12. 12Jesús Pardillo:A Systematic Review of UML Profiles. MODELS, Oslo, 6th Oct. 2010
Summary
‣ Less UML profiles are published.
‣ Metaclass extension is heterogeneous
and biased: Class, Property, and Association.
‣ Occasional iconography mainly on:
Class, Property, and Association.
‣ Tagging is more popular than iconography.
‣ Constraints are neglected.
‣ Defined informally
but slightly regular: structures vs. behaviour.

13. 13Jesús Pardillo:A Systematic Review of UML Profiles. MODELS, Oslo, 6th Oct. 2010
Research Questions
‣ Are UML profiles well understood?
‣ Are formal methods useful for profiling?
‣ Are semantics of UML being neglected?
‣ Is “MOF” enough?
‣ Is UML being profiled for notational reasons?
‣ Is iconography enough?

14. Jesús Pardillo.A Systematic Review of UML Profiles. MODELS, Oslo, 6th Oct. 2010 14
My Educated Guesses
‣ Profiling for:
✴ Specialisation
✓ Visualisation
✓ Annotation

15. Jesús Pardillo.A Systematic Review of UML Profiles. MODELS, Oslo, 6th Oct. 2010 15
Profiling for Specialisation

16. Jesús Pardillo.A Systematic Review of UML Profiles. MODELS, Oslo, 6th Oct. 2010 16
Profiling for Visualisation

17. Jesús Pardillo.A Systematic Review of UML Profiles. MODELS, Oslo, 6th Oct. 2010 17
UML
UML Profiles
Profiling for Annotation

18. A Systematic Review on
the Definition of UML Profiles
Thank you very much for your attention
•Further reading:
Domain-specific language modelling with UML profiles by
decoupling abstract and concrete syntaxes (JSS’10)
‣ Are UML profiles well understood?
‣ Are formal methods useful for profiling?
‣ Are semantics of UML being neglected?
‣ Is “MOF” enough?
‣ Is UML being profiled for notational reasons?
‣ Is iconography enough?
Jesús Pardillo
University of Alicante, Spain
jesuspv@dlsi.ua.es
www.jesuspardillo.com