The Unified Method was launched by Grady Booch and Jim Rumbaugh at an OOPSLA'95 Conference Fringe meeting organised by Rational Software Corporation. In 1996 Unified Method was re-scoped to a notation, and renamed Unified Modeling Language (UML).Earlier this year, UML was submitted to Object Management Group for standardisation and has been endorsed by Microsoft, IBM, HP, Platinum Technologies, ObjectTime and many other corporations. No wonder UML is leading contender as de facto standard notation for object-oriented analysis and design.The panel will take a sanity check, and will go beyond hype and newsgroup flames and attempt to form an objective view of UML and its prospects.The members of panel have been working closely with UhL in many different roles, including that of UML language designer, end-user, consultant, CASE tool expert, and object-oriented methodologist. The discussion will focus on how LJML matches up in practice against one of its original. raisons d'etre as the language of blueprints for software.Specific issues to be addressed include:• What is advantage of UML over existing OOA/D notations?• Can UML be used on real projects today?• Is language sufficiently simple, and well-enough defined, to become de facto standard?• Will UML lead to improved OOA/D methods and CASE tools?• What is importance of meta-model in UML?

article Free Access Share on Methodology standards: help or hindrance? Authors: Grady Booch Rational Software Corporation Rational Software CorporationView Profile , Brian Henderson-Sellers University of Technology, Sydney University of Technology, SydneyView Profile , Ivar Jacobson Objective Systems AB Objective Systems ABView Profile , Steve Mellor Project Technology, Inc. Project Technology, Inc.View Profile , James Rumbaugh GE GEView Profile , Rebecca Wirfs-Brock Digitalk DigitalkView Profile , Chairman: David Monarchi University of Colorado, Boulder University of Colorado, BoulderView Profile Authors Info & Claims ACM SIGPLAN NoticesVolume 29Issue 10Oct. 1994 pp 223–228https://doi.org/10.1145/191081.191115Online:01 October 1994Publication History 5citation0DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations5Total Downloads0Last 12 Months0Last 6 weeks0 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteeReaderPDF

The Data Structure Manager (DSM) combines object-oriented programming with semantic data modeling concepts in the context of the C language. DSM is a full-featured object-oriented language which includes single and multiple inheritance, class descriptor objects, metaclasses, choice of method binding time, error handling, persistent objects, modularity, and an interactive interpreter in an efficient manner. In addition, DSM supports the association and aggregation relationships as part of the Object Modeling Technique (OMT) used for conceptual design. DSM has been used since 1986 to build a variety of research and production-quality software such as an advanced CAF/CAD system.

Controlling the propagation of operations through a collection of objects connected by various relationships has been a problem both for the object-oriented and the data base communities. Operations such as copy, destroy, print, and save must propagate to some, but not all, of the objects in a collection. Such operations can be implemented using ad hoc methods on objects, at the cost of extra work and loss of clarity. The use of propagation attributes on the relationships between objects permits a concise, intuitive specification of the manner in which operations should propagate from one object to another. These concepts have been implemented in the object-oriented language DSM and have been used to write applications.

State trees are a technique for specifying the control of an interactive system by organizing states into trees to define shared structure and behavior. The tree structure permits inheritance of state information, event traps, and entry and exit actions from states to substates, thereby sharing information and reducing the amount of code to be written. An interface can be restructured by moving entire subtrees as modules. State trees separate the recognition of commands from their implementation, allowing either to be modified independently. State trees structure flow of control within an implementation without imposing an identical structure on the interface itself, which need not be hierarchical. State trees have been implemented in an object-oriented language and used to write interactive applications.

The relation as a semantic construct in an object-oriented language clearly expresses associations and constraints among objects which would otherwise be buried in implementation code. The externalization of references between objects permits a symmetric, non-redundant conceptual model which merits its own special notation and predefined operations. The object-relation model, which combines the object-oriented model with the entity-relationship model from data base theory, is particularly useful for designing and partitioning systems of interrelated objects. Relations can be implemented efficiently using hash tables. The model proposed here has been fully implemented in an object-oriented language written by the author which has been used to implement several production applications.

This paper presents the architecture of a highly concurrent multiprocessor which runs programs expressed in data flow notation. Sequencing of data flow instruction execution depends only on the availability of operands required by instructions. Because data flow instructions have no side effects, unrelated instructions can be executed concurrently without interference if each has its required operands. The data flow multiprocessor is hierarchically constructed as a network of simple modules. All module interactions are asynchronous. The principal working elements of the machine are a set of activation processors, each of which performs the execution of one invocation of a data flow procedure held in a local memory within the processor. A pipeline of logical units within each processor executes several concurrently active instructions. All data flow operations are performed within single processors except procedure calls, which cause the creation of new activations in other processors, and operations on large data structures, which are performed by structure controller modules using values stored in a central memory. Concurrency within a data flow procedure provides a processor with something to do while a slow operation is being processed. The behavior of the machine has been specified by a formal description language and has been shown to correctly implement the data flow language. The principal advantages of the data flow multiprocessor over conventional designs are reduced complexity of the processor-memory connection, greater use of pipelining, and a simpler representation and implementation of concurrent activity.