Advertisement

On a time enriched OCL liveness template

  • Juliana Küster-FilipeEmail author
  • Stuart Anderson
Special Section on Specification and Validation of Models of Real Time and Embedded Systems with UML

Abstract

It is increasingly recognised that non-functional requirements should be considered at the earliest stages of system development. Unified modelling language (UML), as a standard, should therefore include notation to capture such requirements. Among these, timing has received considerable attention by the modelling community with several timed extensions of UML diagrams, a UML profile and tools. However, timing constraints are, generally, not captured in a satisfactory way during design. We propose to use UML's object constraint language (OCL) for this purpose, and provide a simple time enriched liveness template for OCL. We describe the benefits of using this template.

Having verification in mind, several logic-based formalisms could be chosen to underly OCL. We consider a novel real-time logic of knowledge, and argue why logics of knowledge are useful and promising in this context. We illustrate our approach with a distributed real-time system. Future work and further benefits of the knowledge-based framework are discussed at the end of the paper.

Keywords

OCL Timed logics of knowledge Timing constraints Timed automata Distributed real-time systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alur, R.: Timed automata. In: 11th International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification, LNCS, vol. 1633, pp. 8–22. Springer (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.: Logics and models of real time: A survey. In: de Bakker, J., Huizing, K., de Roever, W.-P., Rozenberg, G. (eds.), Real time: Theory and practice, LNCS, vol. 600, pp. 74–106. Springer (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benerecetti, M., Spalazzi, L., Tacconi, S.: Verification of the SSL/TLS protocol using a model checkable logic of belief and time. In: Anderson, S., Bologna, S., Felici, M. (eds.), Proceedings of SAFECOMP'02, LNCS, vol. 2434, pp. 126–138. Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bradfield, J., Küster-Filipe, J., Stevens, P.: Enriching OCL using observational mu-calculus. In: Kutsche, R.-D., Weber, H. (eds.), In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE), Grenoble, France, April 2002, LNCS, vol. 2306, pp. 203–217. Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burns, A., Wellings, A.: Real-time systems: Specification, verification and analysis. In: Advanced Fixed Priority Schedulling, pp. 32–65. Prentice-Hall (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cengarle, M., Knapp, A.: Towards OCL/RT. In: Eriksson, L.-H., Lindsay, P. (eds.), Formal Methods—Getting IT Right, International Symposium on Formal Methods Europe, LNCS, vol. 2391, pp. 389–408. Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conrad, S., Turowski, K.: Temporal OCL: Meeting specifications demands for business components. In: Siau, K., Halpin, T. (eds.), Unified Modeling Language: Systems Analysis, Design, and Development Issues, pp. 151–165. IDEA Group Publishing (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Douglass, B.P.: Doing Hard Time: Developing Real-Time Systems with UML, Objects, Frameworks, and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Firley, T., Huhn, M., Diethers, K., Gehrke, T., Goltz, U.: Timed sequence diagrams and tool-based analysis—a case study. In: The Second International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language, Beyond the Standard (UML'99), LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 645–660. Springer (October 1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flake, S., Mueller, W.: An OCL extension for real-time constraints. In: Clark, T., Warmer, J. (eds.), Object Modeling with the OCL, LNCS, vol. 2263, pp. 150–171. Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flake, S., Mueller, W.: Formal semantics of static and temporal state-oriented OCL constraints. Softw. Syst. Model. 2(3), 164–186 (October 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Graf, S., Ober, I., Ober, Iu.: Timed annotations with UML. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Specification and Validation of UML models for Real Time and Embedded Systems (SVERTS 2003) (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halpern, J.Y., Vardi, M.Y.: The complexity of reasoning about knowledge and time, i: lower bounds. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 38(1), 195–237 (1989)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halpern, J.Y.: Reasoning about uncertainty. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Playing with Time: On the Specification and Execution of Time-Enriched LSCs. In: 10th IEEE International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunications Systems (MASCOTS'02) October 11–16, 2002, Fort Worth, Texas, pp. 193–202 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Come, Let's Play: Scenario-based Programming Using LSCs and the Play-Engine. Springer, New York, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klein, M.H., Ralya, T., Pollack, B., Obenza, R., Harbour, M.G.: A Practitioner's Handbook for Real-Time Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA (1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kleppe, A., Warmer, J.: Extending OCL to include actions. In: Kent, S., Evans, A. (eds.), UML'2000—The Unified Modeling Language: Advancing the Standard, Third International Conference, York, UK, October 2–6, 2000, volume 1939 of LNCS, pp. 440–450. Springer (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Knapp, A., Merz, S., Rauh, C.: Model checking timed UML state machines and collaborations. In: Proceedings of 7th International Symposium on Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault Tolerant Systems, LNCS, vol. 2469, pp. 395–416. Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Küster-Filipe, J., Anderson, S.: Using OCL for expressing temporal validity constraints. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Specification and Validation of UML models for Real Time and Embedded Systems (SVERTS 2003) (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Larsen, K., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: UPPAAL in a nutshell. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 1(1–2):134–152, (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    OMG: UML Profile for Modelling Quality of Service and Fault Tolerance Characteristics and Mechanisms, August 2002. Initial submission, available to members at www.omg.org
  23. 23.
    OMG: UML 2.0 OCL Specification. OMG Adopted Specification, document ad/03-10-14, available at www.uml.org (2003)
  24. 24.
    OMG: UML 2.0 Superstructure Draft Adopted Specification. OMG document ptc/03-08-02, available at http://www.uml.org (August 2003)
  25. 25.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language Specification version 1.5 (March 2003) OMG document available at http://www.omg.org
  26. 26.
    OMG: UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time, version 1.1, January 2005. OMG document available at http://www.omg.org
  27. 27.
    Ramakrishnan, S., McGregor, J.: Extending OCL to support temporal operators. In: Ulrich, A. (ed.), ICSE'99 Workshop on Testing Distributed Component-based Systems, Los Angeles, California, USA (May 1999)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saksena, M.: Real-time systems design: A temporal perspective. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (May 1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Segala, R., Gawlick, R., Søgaard-Andersen J., Lynch, N.: Liveness in timed and untimed systems. In: Proceedings of ICALP'94, LNCS, vol. 820, pp. 166–177 (1994)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ziemann, P., Gogolla, M.: An OCL extension for formulating temporal constraints. Technical Report 1/03, Fachbereich Mathematik und Informatik, Universität Bremen, Germany (2003) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceThe University of BirminghamEdgbastonUK
  2. 2.LFCS, School of InformaticsThe University of EdinburghEdinburghScotland

Personalised recommendations