Interoperability

Designing how to move from requirements to code Handling complexity – Platforms, libraries, technology evolution, languages, testing, methodologies, requirements, organization, work, people, … Using tools – Abstraction & Views – Visualization – Verification – Generation – Communication The Application Architect’s Job

The Modelling Dilemma: Two Masters The “Model Centric” Master – Sometimes referred to as “Top Down” The “Code Centric” Master – Sometimes referred to as “Code Up” The value is in the integration between the two approaches…

Models Code artefacts Discover Visualize Refactor Generate As-Is To-Be What-If Analyze Code Tests Debug Traces Reference Libraries Abstract Concrete Models and Code Validate

VS2010 Architecture and Visualization Tools Understand the Code Architecture Explorer Visualization in Graphs Sequence diagram generation Understand the Domain with UML Use Cases Class diagrams Activity diagrams Interaction diagrams Component diagrams Maintain Control Layer diagram Architecture validation Work item integration Extend the Tool Platform Graph model UML profiles Commands, menus, gestures, validation DSL Tools Power tools

What is the Unified Modeling Language (UML)?

UML 2.1 diagrams in VS2010

Defined informally How UML is defined Model Diagram Visualizes and edits UML MetaModel Defined using concepts from MOF Model Defined using concepts from UML Constructs (class, property, association, etc) Defined using concepts from

XMI: how UML is interchanged UML MetaModel Model MOF Model <uml:Model xmi:version="2.1" xmlns:xmi=… … <cmof:Package xmi:version="2.1" xmlns:xmi=… … <cmof:Package xmi:version="2.1" xmlns:xmi=… … UML.xsd

Diagram Definition Currently there is no standard for interchanging UML diagrams effectively, or for defining precisely what legal UML diagrams are The Diagram Definition RFP is developing a new “meta-standard” for defining and interchanging diagrams, led by IBM There will (eventually) be a standard for UML diagrams, based on DD

UML history V2.3 early 2010 V2.2 February 2009 V2.1.2 November 2007 V2.1.1 August 2007 V2.0 July 2005 V1.5 March 2003 V1.4 September 2001 V1.1 November 1997

UML history V2.3 early 2010 <- Microsoft V2.2 February 2009 V2.1.2 November 2007 V2.1.1 August 2007 V2.0 July 2005 V1.5 March 2003 V1.4 September 2001 V1.1 November 1997 <- Microsoft

“Future of UML” Request for Information Issued December 12, 2008 (chaired by S Cook) Response deadline August 17, 2009 Responses: – 01Communications – ARTISAN Software Tools – SOFTEAM – Microsoft – SAP AG – Oose Innovative Informatik Gmbh – Systems Engineering DSIG – No Magic Inc – IBM – Model Driven Solutions – HL7/OMG Working Group – Oracle – BAE Systems, CSC, Mega International, NIST, oose – 88Solutions – AdaCore, CoFluent, EADS, INRIA, THALES – Sparx Systems Pty Ltd

Plan for future Step 1: UML a short-term revision doing metamodel/XMI cleanups on formal issues that inhibit implementation generation and interchange – Completed July 2010 Step 2: UML Specification Simplification RFP. Keep the UML definition the same, but reorganize the specification so that it is consumable and manageable – Completed December 2010 Step 3: UML cleanup RFPs – Refactor and simplify – “Unbundle” and reduce dependencies – Eliminate unintended inheritance – Correct conceptual errors – Reorganize OMG modeling architecture – Eventually leading to UML 3.0

UML is a Family of Languages UMLUML UPDMUPDM SoaMLSoaMLSysMLSysML C#C# javajava TestingTesting Real-time & Embedded

Microsoft engagement Member of OMG Board of Directors Elected to OMG Architecture Board Instigator of Future of UML RFI Co-chair of UML 2.4 RTF Submitter to SMOF Future submitters to UML specification simplification and UML cleanup RFPs Planned interception of revised standards in our evolving modelling products

Keep in touch Visual Studio Visual Studio Visualization and Modeling SDK