Advertisement

Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 257–264 | Cite as

UML/SysML semantic tunings

  • Ileana Ober
  • Iulian Ober
  • Iulia Dragomir
  • El Arbi Aboussoror
SI : FM & UML

Abstract

Recent years have seen a manifest increase in the use of modelling by the embedded systems industry. UML and SysML are two examples of languages used in this context. One of the reasons why the use of models is interesting is the possibility to perform early verification, validation and testing. A lot of work was devoted to developing theoretical results in verification and validation, and interesting results are available. Integrating these results in frameworks that take high-level models as an entry remains a challenging task, for several reasons that include the difficult scalability of the theoretical results. In previous work, we presented OMEGA 2, a framework that takes this challenge. Applying our framework on large industrial models revealed the fact that some features of the UML/SysML semantics which lead to bottlenecks in verification are not actually necessary in the models that we considered, thus leaving place for optimisations. This paper discusses the gap existing between the choices made in the general UML/SysML semantic framework and the actual needs of the users. We illustrate it based on the semantics of ports, for which we give a simplified version of the semantics. This semantics was implemented in our tools and we quantify the optimisation obtained when applying it to a set of case studies.

Keywords

UML SysML Composite structure Operational semantics Case studies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Balasubramanian K, Krishna AS, Turkay E, Balasubramanian J, Parsons J, Gokhale AS, Schmidt DC: Applying model-driven development to distributed real-time and embedded avionics systems. Int J Embed Syst 2, 142–155 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bock C: UML 2 composition model. J Object Technol 3(10), 47–74 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bozga M, Graf S, Ober I, Ober I, Sifakis J (2004) The IF toolset. In: Bernardo M, Corradini F (eds) Formal methods for the design of real-time systems. In: International school on formal methods for the design of computer, communication and software systems, SFM-RT 2004, Bertinoro, Italy, September 13–18, 2004, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3185. Springer, Berlin, pp 237–267Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke EM, Emerson EA, Sifakis J: Model checking: algorithmic verification and debugging. turing lecture from the winners of the 2007 ACM A.M. Turing Award. Commun ACM 52(11), 74–84 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke EM, Grumberg O, Peled DA: Model checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cuccuru A, Gérard S, Radermacher A (2008) Meaningful composite structures. In: Czarnecki K, Ober I, Bruel J-M, Uhl A, Völter M (eds) MoDELS. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5301. Springer, Berlin, pp 828–842Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fernandez J, Garavel H, Kerbrat A, Mounier L, Mateescu R, Sighireanu M: CADP—a protocol validation and verification toolbox. In: Alur, R, Henzinger, TA (eds) CAV. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1102., pp. 437–440. Springer, Berlin (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hinchey M, Jackson M, Cousot P, Cook B, Bowen JP, Margaria T: Software engineering and formal methods. Commun ACM 51(9), 54–59 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ober I., Dragomir I (2010) OMEGA2: a new version of the profile and the tools. In: Calinescu R, Paige RF, Kwiatkowska MZ (eds) ICECCS. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 373–378Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ober I., Dragomir I: Unambiguous UML Composite Structures: The OMEGA2 experience. In: Cerná, I, Gyimóthy, T, Hromkovic, J, Jeffery, KG, Královic, R, Vukolic, M, Wolf, S (eds) SOFSEM Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6543, pp. 418–430. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ober I, Graf S, Lesens D (2006) Modeling and validation of a software architecture for the Ariane-5 Launcher. In: Gorrieri R, Wehrheim H (eds) Formal methods for open object-based distributed systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th IFIP WG 6.1 international conference, FMOODS 2006, Bologna, Italy, June 14–16, 2006, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4037. Springer, Berlin, pp 48–62Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ober I, Graf S, Ober I: Validating timed UML models by simulation and verification. STTT 8(2), 128–145 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ober I, Graf S, Yushtein Y, Ober I: Timing analysis and validation with UML: the case of the embedded MARS bus manager. ISSE 4(3), 301–308 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    OMG (2008) Object Management Group—systems modeling language (SysML), v1.1. http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/1.1/
  15. 15.
    OMG (2009) Object Management Group—unified modeling language (version 2.2). http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.2

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ileana Ober
    • 1
  • Iulian Ober
    • 1
  • Iulia Dragomir
    • 1
  • El Arbi Aboussoror
    • 1
  1. 1.IRIT, Université de ToulouseToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations