運用物件導向技術和統一塑模語言來建構軟體系統模型已成為現代資訊系統分析與設計的新典範。Selonen et al. (2003) 提出一個在統一塑模語言中的轉換架構。但是，他們並沒有明確的定義這些轉換操作，以及操作中所使用的原則。本研究提出一個從循序圖轉換成類別圖的系統方法，來加強Selonen等學者的研究。此轉換程序包含以下三個階段，(1) 將已給定的循序圖對映到一個和符號無關且語義相等的最小模型，(2) 將循序圖最小模型轉換到類別圖的最小模型，(3) 將類別圖的最小模型對映到以類別圖。本論文使用一個真實世界的案例來說明這些概念和其應用，以及運用所提出來的方法之優點。運用此方法，系統開發者可自動地將循序圖轉為類別圖，從而增加系統開發的效率。

Modeling software with object-oriented technique and Unified Modeling Language (UML) has become the new paradigm of modern information systems analysis and design. Selonen et al. (2003) proposed a framework for transformation within UML. However, they do not precisely define the operations and the rules they use. This research presents a systematic method which enhances Selonen et al.’s work to transform the sequence diagram into the class diagram. The transformation process consists of three phases: (1) mapping the given sequence diagram to a notation-independent and semantically equivalent minimal model, (2) transforming the minimal model of the sequence diagram into the minimal model of a class diagram, and (3) mapping the minimal model to a class diagram. A real-world case is used to illustrate the concepts, application, and the advantages of using the proposed method. With this approach, the system developer can transform sequence diagram into class diagram automatically and thereby enhance the efficiency of system development.

1 Introduction……………………………………………………1
1.1 Background and Motivation………………………………1
1.2 Scope and Objective………………………………………2
1.3 Thesis Outline………………………………………………3
2 Literature Review……………………………………………4
2.1 UML………………………………………4
2.2 UML Metamodel………………6
2.2.1 What Is Metamodel?…………………6
2.2.2 Why Need Meatmodel?…………………7
2.3 Phases of Transformation Operation…………………………………………7
2.4 Techniques for Transformation Operations………………………………9
2.5 Related Work…………………………………………………9
2.6 Class Diagram…………………………………………………9
2.6.1 Class Diagram Metamodel…………………………………10
2.6.2 Class………………………………………………………12
2.6.3 Property……………………………………………………13
2.6.4 Operation……………………………………………………15
2.6.5 Association…………………………………………………16
2.6.6 Generalization………………………………………………18
2.7 SequenceDiagram…………………………………………………19
2.7.1 Sequence Diagram Metamodel…………………………19
2.7.2 Interaction………………………………………………21
2.7.3 Lifeline………………………………………………21
2.7.4 EventOccurrence……………………………………22
2.7.5 ExecutionOccurrence………………………………22
2.7.6 Message and MessageEnd…………………………23
2.7.7 Stop………………………………………………25
2.7.8 StateInvariant and Constraint……………………25
3 Transformation Operation…………………………………27
3.1 Mapping………………………………………………27
3.1.1 Class Diagram Mapping…………………………28
3.1.2 Sequence Diagram Mapping…………………29
3.2 Transformation Rules….…………………………………32
3.2.1 Using Push Approach………………………………32
3.2.2 Using Pull Approach………………………………36
3.3 Transformation Function………………………39
4 Example Transformation……………………………41
5 Conclusion and Future Work…………………………………46
5.1 Conclusion……………………………………………………46
5.2 Future Work……………………………………………………47
References…………………………………………………………49

Atkinson, C. and Kühne, T., Model-Driven Development: A Metamodeling Foundation, IEEE Software, vol.20, no.5, September-October 2003, pp.36-41.
Bennett, S., McRobb, S. and Farmer, R., Object-Oriented Systems Analysis And Design Using UML, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2002.
Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J. and Jacobson, I., The Unified Modeling Language User Guide, Addison-Wesley, 1999.
Egyed, A., Integrating Architectural Views in UML. (Technical Report USCCSE-99-514) Los Angeles, CA: Center for Software Engineering, University of Southern California, 1999.
Fowler, M., UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language, Third Edition, Addison-Wesley, 2003.
Godin, R., and Mili, H., Building and Maintaining Analysis-Level Class Hierarchies Using Galois Lattices, In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications, Washington, DC, USA, Sept. 26 – Oct. 1 1993, pp. 394-410.
Gogolla M. and Richters M., Equivalence Rules for UML Class Diagrams, University of Bremen, Internal report, 1998.
Génova, G., Llorens, J., and Palacios, V., Sending messages in UML, Journal of Object Technology, Vol. 2, No. 1, January-February 2003, pp. 99-115.
Jacobson, I., Booch, G.., and Rumbaugh, J., The Unified Software Development Process, Addison-Wesley, 1999.
Kleppe, A., Warmer, J., and Bast, W., MDA Explained: the model driven architecture: practice and promise, Addison-Wesley, 2003.
Mellor, S. J., Scott, K., Uhl, A., and Weise, D., MDA Distilled: Principles of Model-Driven Architecture, Addison-Wesley, 2004.
Nømark, K., Synthesis of Program Outlines from Scenarios in DYNAMO, Available online at: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~normark/dynamo.html, 1998.
OMG, Unified Modeling Language (UML) Specification: Infrastructure. Version 2.0, ptc/03-09-15, 2003a.
OMG, Unified Modeling Language (UML) Specification: Superstructure. Version 2.0, ptc/03-08-02, 2003b.
Kruchten, P., The Rational Unified Process (3nd Ed.), An Introduction, Addison- Wesley, 2003.
Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I. and Booch, G., The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, Addison-Wesley, 1999.
Selonen P. and Systä T., Scenario-based Synthesis of Annotated Class Diagrams in UML, In Proceedings of OOPSLA 2000 Workshop: Scenario-based round-trip engineering, pp. 26-31, Technical Report 20, Tampere University of Technology, 2000.
Selonen, P., Koskimies, K., and Sakkinen, M., How to make apples form oranges in UML. In Proceeding of HICSS-34 (CDROM), Decision Technologies for Management Track, Maui, HA, January. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 2001.
Selonen P., Koskimies K., and Sakkinen M., Transformations Between UML Diagrams, Journal of Database Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 37-55, 2003.