Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Filmstripping and Unrolling: A Comparison of Verification Approaches for UML and OCL Behavioral Models

  • Conference paper
Tests and Proofs (TAP 2014)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 8570))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Guaranteeing the essential properties of a system early in the design process is an important as well as challenging task. Modeling languages such as the UML allow for a formal description of structure and behavior by employing OCL class invariants and operation pre- and postconditions. This enables the verification of a system description prior to implementation. For this purpose, first approaches have recently been put forward. In particular, solutions relying on the deductive power of constraint solvers are promising. Here, complementary approaches of how to formulate and transform respective UML and OCL verification tasks into corresponding solver tasks have been proposed. However, the resulting methods have not yet been compared to each other. In this contribution, we consider two verification approaches for UML and OCL behavioral models and compare their methods and the respective workflows with each other. By this, a better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of these verification methods is achieved.

This work was partially funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under grants GO 454/19-1 and WI 3401/5-1 as well as within the Reinhart Koselleck project DR 287/23-1.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahrendt, W., Beckert, B., Hähnle, R., Schmitt, P.H.: KeY: A Formal Method for Object-Oriented Systems. In: Bonsangue, M.M., Johnsen, E.B. (eds.) FMOODS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4468, pp. 32–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Georg, G., Ray, I.: On Challenges of Model Transformation from UML to Alloy. Software and System Modeling 9(1), 69–86 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barrett, C., Stump, A., Tinelli, C.: The Satisfiability Modulo Theories Library (SMT-LIB) (2010), www.SMT-LIB.org

  4. Bill, R., Gabmeyer, S., Kaufmann, P., Seidl, M.: OCL meets CTL: Towards CTL-Extended OCL Model Checking. In: Proceedings of the MODELS 2013 OCL Workshop. vol. 1092, pp. 13–22 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brucker, A.D., Wolff, B.: Semantics, calculi, and analysis for object-oriented specifications. Acta Inf. 46(4), 255–284 (2009)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Brummayer, R., Biere, A.: Boolector: An Efficient SMT Solver for Bit-Vectors and Arrays. In: Kowalewski, S., Philippou, A. (eds.) TACAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5505, pp. 174–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: UMLtoCSP: A Tool for the Formal Verification of UML/OCL Models using Constraint Programming. In: Stirewalt, R.E.K., Egyed, A., Fischer, B. (eds.) ASE 2007, pp. 547–548. ACM (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: Verifying UML/OCL Operation Contracts. In: Leuschel, M., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) IFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5423, pp. 40–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. De Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Flake, S., Müller, W.: Past- and Future-Oriented Time-Bounded Temporal Properties with OCL. In: SEFM 2004, pp. 154–163. IEEE Computer Society (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gabmeyer, S., Brosch, P., Seidl, M.: A Classification of Model Checking-Based Verification Approaches for Software Models. In: Proceedings of VOLT 2013 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gogolla, M., Büttner, F., Richters, M.: USE: A UML-Based Specification Environment for Validating UML and OCL. Science of Computer Programming 69 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gogolla, M., Büttner, F., Cabot, J.: Initiating a Benchmark for UML and OCL Analysis Tools. In: Veanes, M., Viganò, L. (eds.) TAP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7942, pp. 115–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Gogolla, M., Hamann, L., Hilken, F., Kuhlmann, M., France, R.B.: From Application Models to Filmstrip Models: An Approach to Automatic Validation of Model Dynamics. In: Fill, H.G., Karagiannis, D., Reimer, U. (eds.) Proc. Modellierung (MODELLIERUNG 2014), Gesellschaft für Informatik, LNI (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Haedicke, F., Frehse, S., Fey, G., Großbe, D., Drechsler, R.: metaSMT: Focus on your application not on solver integration. In: DIFTS 2012 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kuhlmann, M., Gogolla, M.: From UML and OCL to Relational Logic and Back. In: France, R.B., Kazmeier, J., Breu, R., Atkinson, C. (eds.) MODELS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7590, pp. 415–431. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Kyas, M., Fecher, H., de Boer, F.S., Jacob, J., Hooman, J., van der Zwaag, M., Arons, T., Kugler, H.: Formalizing UML Models and OCL Constraints in PVS. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 115, 39–47 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Queralt, A., Artale, A., Calvanese, D., Teniente, E.: OCL-Lite: Finite reasoning on UML/OCL conceptual schemas. Data Knowl. Eng. 73, 1–22 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Snook, C., Butler, M.: UML-B: A Plug-in for the Event-B Tool Set. In: Börger, E., Butler, M., Bowen, J.P., Boca, P. (eds.) ABZ 2008. LNCS, vol. 5238, p. 344. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Soden, M., Eichler, H.: Temporal Extensions of OCL Revisited. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 190–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Soeken, M., Wille, R., Drechsler, R.: Encoding OCL Data Types for SAT-Based Verification of UML/OCL Models. In: Gogolla, M., Wolff, B. (eds.) TAP 2011. LNCS, vol. 6706, pp. 152–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Soeken, M., Wille, R., Drechsler, R.: Verifying dynamic aspects of UML models. In: DATE, pp. 1077–1082. IEEE (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Soeken, M., Wille, R., Kuhlmann, M., Gogolla, M., Drechsler, R.: Verifying UML/OCL models using Boolean satisfiability. In: DATE, pp. 1341–1344. IEEE (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Straeten, R.V.D., Puissant, J.P., Mens, T.: Assessing the Kodkod Model Finder for Resolving Model Inconsistencies. In: France, R.B., Kuester, J.M., Bordbar, B., Paige, R.F. (eds.) ECMFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6698, pp. 69–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Torlak, E., Jackson, D.: Kodkod: A Relational Model Finder. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 632–647. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Ziemann, P., Gogolla, M.: OCL Extended with Temporal Logic. In: Broy, M., Zamulin, A.V. (eds.) PSI 2003. LNCS, vol. 2890, pp. 351–357. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Department, University of Bremen, D-28359, Bremen, Germany

    Frank Hilken, Philipp Niemann, Martin Gogolla & Robert Wille

Authors
  1. Frank Hilken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philipp Niemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Gogolla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert Wille
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Formal Models and Verification, Johannes Kepler University, Altenbergerstr. 69, 4040, Linz, Austria

    Martina Seidl

  2. One Microsoft Way, Microsoft Research, 98052, Redmond, WA, USA

    Nikolai Tillmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Hilken, F., Niemann, P., Gogolla, M., Wille, R. (2014). Filmstripping and Unrolling: A Comparison of Verification Approaches for UML and OCL Behavioral Models. In: Seidl, M., Tillmann, N. (eds) Tests and Proofs. TAP 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8570. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09099-3_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09099-3_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-09098-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-09099-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation