UML behavioral consistency checking using instantiable Petri nets

  • Yann Thierry-MiegEmail author
  • Lom-Messan Hillah
Original Paper


Model-driven engineering (MDE) development methods are gaining increasing attention from industry. In MDE, the model is the primary artifact and serves several goals, including code generation, requirements traceability, and model-based testing. MDE thus enables cost-effective building of models versus direct coding of an application. Thus model-based formal verification of behavioral consistency is desirable as it helps improve model quality. Our approach is based on translation of a UML model to instantiable Petri nets (IPN). This formalism is based on the semantics of Petri nets, but introduces the concepts of type and instance. This allows one to accurately capture these concepts in UML models. IPN support hierarchical descriptions natively, and use the notion of transition synchronization for composition of behaviors. This is a general and powerful mechanism borrowed from process algebra. We show that IPN allow one to adequately address the challenges of translation from UML for analysis purposes. The approach has been implemented and experimental results are presented.


Behavioral consistency UML Petri nets Formal verification Model checking 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Broy M, Crane M, Dingel J, Hartman A, Rumpe B, Selic B (2007) 2nd UML 2 Semantics Symposium: Formal Semantics for UML. Models Softw Eng 318–323Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clarke EM, Allen Emerson E, Sifakis J (2007) Turing award for their original and continuing research on model checkingGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ciardo G, Lüttgen G, Miner AS (2007) Exploiting interleaving semantics in symbolic state-space generation. Formal Methods Syst Des 31(1): 63–100zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campos J, Merseguer J (2006) On the integration of uml and petri nets in software development. In: Donatelli S, Thiagarajan PS (eds) 27th ICATPN— Petri Nets and other models of concurrency, vol 4024. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donatelli S, Franceschinis G (1996) The psr methodology: Integrating hardware and software models. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on application and theory of petri nets. Springer, London, pp 133–152Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Damm W, Hermanns H (eds) (2007) In: Computer aided verification, 19th international conference, CAV 2007, Berlin, Germany, July 3–7, 2007, Proceedings, vol 4590 of LNCS. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engels G, Heckel R, Küster JM (2001) Rule-based specification of behavioral consistency based on the UML meta-model. In: Gogolla M, Kobryn C (eds) 4th international conference on the unified modeling language, modeling languages, concepts and tools, vol 2185. Springer, London, pp 272–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eshuis R (2006) Symbolic model checking of uml activity diagrams. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 15(1): 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gupta A, McMillan K, Fu Z (2007) Automated assumption generation for compositional verification. Comput Aided Verif 420–432Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamez A, Hillah L, Kordon F, Linard A, Paviot-Adet E, Renault X, Thierry-Mieg Y (2006) New features in cpn-ami 3: focusing on the analysis of complex distributed systems. In: ACSD. IEEE Computer Society, pp 273–275Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hu Z, Shatz SM (2006) Explicit modeling of semantics associated with composite states in UML statecharts. Autom Softw Eng 13(4): 423–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hailpern B, Tarr P (2006) Model-driven development: The good, the bad and the ugly. IBM Syst J 45(3): 451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Milner R (1999) Communicating and mobile systems: the Pi-Calculus. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Murata T (1989) Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. In: Proceedings of the IEEE. NewsletterInfo: 33Published as proceedings of the IEEE, vol 77, number 4. pp 541–580Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    OMG. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure - Version 2.1.2 formal/07-11-02. OMG, November 2007Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yao S, Shatz SM (2006) Consistency checking of UML dynamic models based on petri net techniques. In: CIC ’06: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on computing. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 289–297Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université P. and M. CurieParisFrance

Personalised recommendations