(Institutional Affiliation) FORMAL REPORT COMPARING THE USE OF THE Essay

(Institutional Affiliation) FORMAL REPORT COMPARING THE USE OF THE IDEF METHODOLOGY TO UML - Essay Example 1). On the other hand, UML is a modeling language that is most suited to the generation of computer-executable platforms/frameworks that encode important elements of software engineering projects. This paper will seek to compare the use of IDEF to UML by focusing on their applications, nature, and techniques employed in their development. This comparison will be done on the basis of credible and reliable literatures, written and published by authorities on modeling languages and techniques. Key Words IDEF; UML; graphical modeling methods; enterprise engineering projects; modeling language The Approach/Rationale of both Methodologies a) IDEF According to Bernus, Mertins, & Schmidt (1998, pg. 17), the rationale for IDEF is to support modeling activities that are fundamental to system analysis, design, improvement or integration. b) UML The approach/rationale for UML is to act as the dominant, publicly accepted, and uniform objected oriented visual modeling language, and as a foundation object description language for the offshoot unified enterprise modeling language (UEML) that has been put forward by IFAC/IFIP (Bernus, Mertins, & Schmidt 1998, pg. 17). The Stages of the Systems Development Life Cycle that each Addresses IDEF methodology addresses documentation, design, integration, analysis, understanding, planning, and improvement (Fowler & Scott 2000, pg. 46). Based on the Waterfall model of the system development life cycle (SDLC), these functions fit into four stages of the SDLC: preliminary analysis, system analysis and requirements definition, systems design, integration and testing, and maintenance. On the other hand UML methodology is limited to the systems design phase. During the systems analysis phase, object-oriented analysis (OOA) is performed; its output is a conceptual model that is comprised of one (sometimes more) UML class diagram, a user-interface mock-up, a group of use cases, and a couple of interaction diagrams. This conceptual model is sub sequently used as an input in objected-oriented design during the systems design phase (Lankhorst 2005, pg. 63). The Techniques used for modeling the Processes/Functions of the System (including the similarities and differences between the techniques and their strengths and weaknesses) a) IDEF Techniques IDEF is based on three modeling constructs/viewpoints/techniques which define its approach/rationale. These are: i) IDEF0 Function Modeling Method This method was created so as to represent processes or activities (consisting of partially sequenced groups of activities) that are usually executed in a systematic and uniform manner. IDEF0 defines a function as a group of activities that takes specific inputs and, using some mechanism, and based on certain controls, converts the inputs into outputs (Noran 2008, pg. 41). These ICOMs (inputs, controls, outputs and mechanisms) can be employed in the modeling of relationships between a wide range of activities (Kim 2003, pg. 3). IDEF0 mode ling generally begins by defining a context diagram (Kim 2003, pg. 3). This is representative of the system’s overall purpose and its interactions with external environments (Kim 2003, pg. 3). Usually, IDEF0 models consist of a hierarchy of connected diagrams that are decomposed systematically hence encoding semantic data at lower modeling levels. The systematical breakdown brings not only detailed but also wide-scope representations of system or environmental activities (Bernus, Mertins, & Schmidt 1998, pg. 29). ii) IDEF1x Data Modeling Method This method was created to define data models that symbolize both the semantics and structure of data that is found in a target system