The HybridUML profile for UML 2.0

  • Kirsten BerkenkötterEmail author
  • Stefan Bisanz
  • Ulrich Hannemann
  • Jan Peleska
Special Section on Specification and Validation of Models of Real Time and Embedded Systems with UML


In this article, a new UML extension for the specification of hybrid systems, where observables may consist of both discrete and time-continuous parameters, is presented. Whereas hybrid modeling constructs are not available in standard UML, several specification formalisms for this type of system have been elaborated and discussed, among them the CHARON language of Alur et al. which possesses already several attractive features for modeling embedded real-time systems with hybrid characteristics. Adopting this as a basis, the profile inherits formal semantics based on CHARON, so it offers the possibility for formal reasoning about hybrid UML specifications. Conversely, the CHARON framework is associated with a new syntactic representation within the UML 2.0 world, allowing to develop hybrid specifications with arbitrary CASE tools supporting UML 2.0 and its profiling mechanism. The “look-and-feel” of the profile is illustrated by means of a case study of an embedded system controlling the cabin illumination in an aircraft. The benefits and weaknesses of the constructed hybrid UML profile are discussed, resulting in feed-back for the improvement of both UML 2.0 and the CHARON formalism.


Hybrid automata UML Embedded systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alur, R., Courcoubetis, C., Henzinger, T., Ho, P., Nicollin, X., Olivero, A., Sifakis, J., Yovine, S.: The algorithmic analysis of hybrid systems. Theor. Comp. Sci. 138, 3–34 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur, R., Dang, T., Esposito, J., Fierro, R., Hur, Y., Ivančić, F., Kumar, V., Lee, I., Mishra, P., Pappas, G., Sokolsky, O.: Hierarchical hybrid modeling of embedded systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Embedded Software (EMSOFT), LNCS 2211, pp. 14–31 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alur, R., Dang, T., Esposito, J., Hur, Y., Ivančić, F., Kumar, V., Lee, I., Mishra, P., Pappas, G., Sokolsky, O.: Hierarchical hybrid modeling and analysis of embedded systems. Proceedings of the IEEE 91(1), 11–28 (January 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alur, R., Grosu, R., Lee, I., Sokolsky, O.: Compositional refinement for hierarchical hybrid systems. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, LNCS 2034, pp. 33–48 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berkenkötter, K., Bisanz, S., Hannemann, U., Peleska, J.: Executable HybridUML and its Application to Train Control Systems. In: Integration of Software Specification Techniques for Applications in Engineering, LNCS 3147, pp. 145–173 (September 2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berkenkötter, K.: Using UML 2.0 in real-time development– a critical review. SVERTS Workshop at the 〈〈UML〉〉 2003 Conference (October 2003).
  7. 7.
    Bisanz, S., Ziemann, P., Lindow, A.: Integrated Specification, Validation and Verification with HybridUML and OCL applied to the BART Case Study. In: FORMS/FORMAT 2004. Formal Methods for Automation and Safety in Railway and Automotive Systems, pp. 191–203, Braunschweig (December 2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Damm, W., Josko, B., Hungar, H., Pnueli, A.: A compositional real-time semantics of STATEMATE designs. LNCS 1536, pp. 186–238 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ericsson, IBM, FOKUS, Motorola, Rational, Softeam, and Telelogic. UML Testing Profile (Draft Adopted Specification) (July 2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Henzinger, T.A.: The theory of hybrid automata. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pp. 278–292. IEEE Computer Society Press (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hamer, U., Peleska, J.: Z Applied to the A330/340 CIDS Cabin Communication System. In: Hinchey, M., Bowen, J. (eds.), Applications of Formal Methods, pp. 253–284. Prentice Hall International (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jacobson, I., Rumbaugh, J., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language—Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG: UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, and Time Specification, March 2002.
  14. 14.
    OMG: Unified Modeling Language Specification (Action Semantics) (January 2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    OMG: UML 2.0 Infrastructure Specification, OMG Adopted Specification. (September 2003)
  16. 16.
    OMG: UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification, OMG Adopted Specification. (August 2003)
  17. 17.
    Roscoe, A.W.: The Theory and Practice of Concurrency. Prentice Hall International (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Selic, B.: Using UML for modeling complex real-time systems. In: Languages, Compilers, and Tools for Embedded Systems, ACM SIGPLAN Workshop LCTES'98, Montreal, Canada, June 1998, Proceedings, LNCS 1474, pp. 250–260 (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Winter, V.L., Bhattacharya, S.: High Integrity Software. Kluwer Academic Publishers Press (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhou, C., Ravn, A.P., Hansen, M.R.: An extended duration calculus for hybrid real-time systems. In: Hybrid Systems, pp. 36–59. The Computer Society of the IEEE (1993) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirsten Berkenkötter
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stefan Bisanz
    • 1
  • Ulrich Hannemann
    • 1
  • Jan Peleska
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations