Abstract
UML 2.0, which is the standard modeling language for object-oriented systems, has only an informally given semantics. This is in particular the case for UML 2.0 state machines, which are widely used for modeling the reactive behavior of objects. In this paper, a list of 29 newly detected trouble spots consisting of ambiguities, inconsistencies, and unnecessarily strong restrictions of UML 2.0 state machines is given and illustrated using 6 state machines having a problematic meaning; suggestions for improvement are presented. In particular, we show that the concepts of history, priority, and entry/exit points have to be reconsidered.
Part of this work has been financially supported by IST project Omega (IST-2001- 33522) and NWO/DFG project Mobi-J (RO 1122/9-1, RO 1122/9-2).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Börger, E., Cavarra, A., Riccobene, E.: Modeling the Dynamics of UML State Machines. In: Gurevich, Y., Kutter, P.W., Odersky, M., Thiele, L. (eds.) ASM 2000. LNCS, vol. 1912, pp. 223–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Eshuis, R., Jansen, D.N., Wieringa, R.: Requirements-level semantics and model checking of object-oriented statecharts. Requirements Engineering Journal 7, 243–263 (2002)
Gnesi, S., Latella, D., Massink, M.: Modular semantics for a uml statechart diagrams kernel and its extension to multicharts and branching time model-checking. The Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 51(1), 43–75 (2002)
Harel, D.: Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming 8(3), 231–274 (1987)
Harel, D., Gery, E.: Executable object modeling with statecharts. Computer 30(7), 31–42 (1997)
Lilius, J., Paltor, I.P.: Formalising UML state machines for model checking. In: France, R.B., Rumpe, B. (eds.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 430–445. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Object Management Group. OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.5 (2003), http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/03-03-01
Object Management Group. UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification (updated version) (October 2004), http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/2004-10-02
Reggio, G., Wieringa, R.: Thirty one problems in the semantics of uml 1.3 dynamics. In: OOPSLA 1999 workshop, Rigorous Modelling and Analysis of the UML: Challenges and Limitations (1999)
Schönborn, J.: Formal semantics of UML 2.0 behavioral state machines. Master’s thesis, Christian-Albrechts Universität zu Kiel (2005), http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~jes/jsFsemUMLsm.pdf
Simons, A.J.H., Graham, I.: 30 things that go wrong in object modelling with uml 1.3. In: Kilov, H., Rumpe, B., Simmonds, I. (eds.) Behavioral Specifications of Businesses and Systems, pp. 237–257. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1999)
von der Beeck, M.: A structured operational semantics for UML-statecharts. Software and System Modeling 1(2), 130–141 (2002)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Fecher, H., Schönborn, J., Kyas, M., de Roever, WP. (2005). 29 New Unclarities in the Semantics of UML 2.0 State Machines. In: Lau, KK., Banach, R. (eds) Formal Methods and Software Engineering. ICFEM 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3785. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11576280_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11576280_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-29797-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-32250-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)