From use cases to test cases via meta model-based reasoning

Position paper: work in progress
  • Stefan GrunerEmail author
Original Paper


In Use cases considered harmful, Simons has analyzed the logical weaknesses of the UML use case notation and has recommended to “fix the faulty notion of dependency” (Simons: Use cases considered harmful. 29th Conference on Techn. of OO Lang. and Syst., pp 194–203, 1999). The project sketched in this position paper is inspired by Simons’ critique. The main contribution of this paper is a detailed meta model of possible relations between use cases. Later in the project this meta model is then to be formalized in a natural deduction calculus which shall be implemented in the Prolog. As a result of such formalization a use case specification can be queried for inconsistencies as well as for test cases which must be observable after a software system is implemented based on such a use case specification. Software tool support for this method is also under development.


Use cases Test cases Meta model Prolog 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Back RJ, Petre L, Paltor IP (1999) Formalizing UML use cases in the refinement calculus. Technical Report TUCS-TR-279Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bisova V, Richta K (2000) Transformation of UML Models into XML. In: ADBIS-DASFAA symposium, pp 33–45Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    den Haan N (1995) Investigations into the application of deontic logic. LNCS 897Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Genilloud G, Frank WF (2004) Use case concepts using a clear, consistent, concise ontology. J Object Technol 4/6. Special Issue: Use case modeling at UML-2004Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kolaczek G (2002) Application of deontic logic on role-based access control. J Appl Math Comp SciGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kotb Y, Katayama T (2006) A novel technique to verify UML use case diagrams. IASTED Conf Softw Eng 300–305Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kulak D, Guiney E (2004) Use cases—requirements in context, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley/Pearson, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li L (2000) Translating use cases to sequence diagrams. In: Proceedings of ASE, pp 293–296Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maibaum T, Khosla S, Jeremaes P (1986) A modal action logic for requirements specification. Softw Eng 86Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Metz P (2004) Revising and unifying the use case textual and graphical worlds. PhD Thesis, promoted by W. Weber and J. O’Brien, Department of Computing, Cork Institute of Technology, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Routledge N, Bird L, Goodchild A (2002) UML and XML schema. In: Proceedings of 13th Australian DB conference, pp 157–166Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ryndina K, Kritzinger P (2005) Analysis of structured use case models through model checking. S Afr Comput J 35: 84–96Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Segerberg K (1982) A deontic logic of action. Stud Logica 41: 269–282zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simons A (1999) Use cases considered harmful. In: 29th Conference on Technology of OO Lang. and Syst., pp 194–203Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Snook C, Butler M (2008) UML-B and Event-B—an integration of languages and tools. In: Proceedings of IASTED international conference on software engineer (SE2008), February, Innsbruck (A)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversiteit van PretoriaPretoriaRepublic of South Africa

Personalised recommendations