Extending the UML Metamodel to Provide Support for Crosscutting Concerns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aspect-orientation is a term used to describe approaches that explicitly capture, model and implement crosscutting concerns (or aspects). There is currently a number of new programming languages as well as extensions to current programming languages, the design dimensions of most of which have been influenced by the AspectJ language through three concepts and their respective constructs, namely join points, point cuts and advice which can support two principles recognized as being key concepts of aspect-oriented programming (AOP): quantification and obliviousness. At the modeling level, the reception of AOP has long been focused on the modeling of AspectJ programs, and there exists no model that is generic enough to capture non-AspectJ aspects either as a source language during forward engineering or as a target language during reverse engineering. In this paper, we present an extension to the UML metamodel to explicitly capture crosscutting concerns. The model is independent from any programming language and abstracted away from platform specific details. An instantiation of the newly created metamodel can be represented in standard XMI format, which enables current CASE tools to read and to visualize the instance models in UML. This language-independent aspectual description can support model transformations vital to software development and maintenance, such as forward engineering, reverse engineering, and reengineering.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".