Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 203–224 | Cite as

Extending interaction overview diagrams with activity diagram constructs

Regular Paper


UML2.0 introduced interaction overview diagrams (IODs) as a way of specifying relationships between UML interactions. IODs are a variant of activity diagrams that show control flow between a set of interactions. The nodes in an IOD are either inline interactions or references to an interaction. A number of recent papers have defined a formal semantics for IODs. These are restricted, however, to interactions that can be specified using basic sequence diagrams. This excludes the many rich modeling constructs available in activity diagrams such as interruptible regions, activity groups, concurrent node executions, and flow final nodes. It is non-trivial to allow such constructs in IODs because their meaning has to be interpreted in the context of interaction sequences rather than activities. In this paper, we consider how some of these activity diagram constructs can be used practically in IODs. We motivate the integration of these constructs into IODs using a NASA air traffic control subsystem and define a formal semantics for these constructs that builds on an existing semantics definition for IODs.


UML Interactions Activity diagrams Formal semantics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alexander, I.: Scenario Plus Use Case Toolkit. (2005)
  2. 2.
    Alexander, I., Maiden, N. (eds): Scenarios, Stories, Use Cases through the Systems Development Life-Cycle. Wiley, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amyot, D., Logrippo, L., Buhr, R.J.A., Gray, T.: Use case maps for the capture and validation of distributed systems requirements. In: Requirements Engineering, pp. 44–53. IEEE Computer Society (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belachew, M., Shyamasunder, R.K.: MSC+: From requirements to prototyped systems. In: 13th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS’01), pp. 117–125 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark, T., Evans, A., Sammut, P., Willans, J.: Applied Metamodeling: A Foundation for Language Driven Development. Xactium (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Combes P., Harel D., Kugler H.: Modeling and verification of a telecommunication application using live sequence charts and the play-engine tool. In: Peled, D., Tsay, Y.-K. (eds) ATVA, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3707, pp. 414–428. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Denery, D., Erzberger, H., Davis, T., Green, S., McNally, B.D.: Challenges of air traffic management research: Analysis, simulation, and field test. In: AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gottesdiener E.: Running a use case/scenario workshop. In: Alexander, I., Maiden, N. (eds) Scenarios, Stories, Use Cases through the Systems Development Life-Cycle, pp. 81–101. Wiley, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grosu, R., Krüger, I., Stauner, T.: Hybrid sequence charts. In: Third International Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC 2000), pp. 104–113 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grosu, R., Smolka, S.: Safety-liveness semantics for UML2.0 sequence diagrams. In: Fifth International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD 2005), pp. 6–14 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harel D., Marelly R.: Specifying and executing behavioral requirements: the play-in/play-out approach. Softw. Syst. Model. 2(2), 82–107 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haugen Ø., Husa K.E., Runde R.K., Stølen K.: Stairs: towards formal design with sequence diagrams. J. Softw. Syst. Model. 4(4), 355–367 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacobson I., Christerson M., Jonsson P., Övergaard G.: Object Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison–Wesley, Reading (1992)MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jayaraman, P., Whittle, J.: UCSIM: a tool for simulating use case scenarios. In: 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 43–44 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krüger, I.: Distributed System Design with Message Sequence Charts. PhD thesis, Technische Universität München (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maiden, N.A.M, Minocha, S., Manning, K., Ryan, M.: CREWS-SAVRE: Systematic scenario generation and use. In: ICRE, pp. 148–155. IEEE Computer Society (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    OMG.: Unified Modeling Language 2.1.1 specification (superstructure 07-02-05) 2007.
  18. 18.
    Potts C., Takahashi K., Antón A.I.: Inquiry-based requirements analysis. IEEE Softw 11(2), 21–32 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Robinson, J.E.: Weather control requirements. Technical report, NASA Ames Research Center, 2003.
  20. 20.
    Sindre G., Opdahl A.L.: Eliciting security requirements with misuse cases. Requir. Eng. 10(1), 34–44 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Swiderski, F., Snyder, W.: Threat Modeling. Microsoft Professional (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Negative scenarios for implied scenario elicitation. In: SIGSOFT FSE, pp. 109–118 (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    International Telecommunication Union: Recommendation Z.120: Message Sequence Chart (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    International Telecommunication Union: Recommendation Z.120: Message Sequence Chart. Annex B: Formal Semantics of Message Sequence Charts. (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Whittle, J.: Precise specification of use case scenarios. In: Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE07), pp. 170–184 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Whittle, J., Jayaraman, P.: Generating hierarchical finite state machines from use case charts. In: 14th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE’06), pp. 16–25 (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Whittle, J., Joy, C., Krüger, I.: Generating simulation and test models from scenarios. In: Third World Congress on Software Quality, pp. 41–53 (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Whittle J., Joy C., Krüger I.: Supporting model-based testing with scenarios and state machines. Softw. Qual. Prof. 8(4), 17–28 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zachos, K., Maiden, N.A.M.: Art-scene: Enhancing scenario walkthroughs with multi-media scenarios. In: Requirements Engineering, pp. 360–361. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ComputingLancaster UniversityBailrigg LancasterUK

Personalised recommendations