%
% GENERATED FROM http://acme.able.cs.cmu.edu
%    by   : anonymous
%    IP   : ec2-3-22-248-247.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com
%    at   : Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:26:37 -0400 GMT
%    
% Selection : Publication #168
%


<tr><td><table><tr><td>

@InProceedings{Garlan2000e,
      AUTHOR = {Garlan, David and Kompanek, Andrew},
      TITLE = {Reconciling the Needs of Architectural Description with Object-Modeling Notations},
      YEAR = {2000},
      MONTH = {October},
      BOOKTITLE = {Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language - << UML >> 2000},
      ADDRESS = {York, UK},
      PDF = {http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/able/ftp/uml00/uml00.pdf},
      PS = {http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/able/ftp/uml00/uml00.ps},
      ABSTRACT = {Complex software systems require expressive notations for representing their software architectures. Two competing paths have emerged. One is to use a specialized notation for architecture -- or architecture description language (ADL). The other is to adapt a general-purpose modeling notation, such as UML. The latter has a number of benefits including familiarity to developers, close mapping to implementations, and commercial tool support. However, it remains an open question as to how best to use object-oriented notations for architectural description, and, indeed, whether they are sufficiently expressive, as currently defined. In this paper we take a systematic look at these questions, examining the space of possible mappings from ADLs into object notations. Specifically, we describe (a) the principle strategies for representing architectural structure in UML; (b) the benefits and limitations of each strategy; and (c) aspects of architectural description that are intrinsically difficult to model in UML using the strategies. },
      KEYWORDS = {Software Architecture, UML}
}