Activity Graphs and Processes

  • Christie Bolton
  • Jim Davies
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1945)


The widespread adoption of graphical notations for software design has created a demand for formally-based methods to support and extend their use. A principal focus for this demand is the Unified Mo- deling Language (UML), and, within UML, the diagrammatic notations for describing dynamic properties. This paper shows how one such notation, that of Activity Graphs, can be given a process semantics in the language of Communicating Sequen- tial Processes (CSP). Such a semantics can be used to demonstrate the consistency of an object model and to provide a link to other methods and tools. A small example is included.


Loop State Outgoing Transition Abstract Data Type Activity Graph External Choice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Amyot, L. Logrippo, R.J.A. Buhr, and T. Gray. Use case maps for the capture and validation of distributed systems requirements. In Proceedings of RE’ 99, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Bolton and J. Davies. Using relational and behavioural semantics in the verification of object models. In C. Talcott and S. Smith, editors, Proceedings of FMOODS’ 00. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000. To appear.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Bolton, J. Davies, and J. Woodcock. On the refinement and simulation of data types and processes. In K. Araki, A. Galloway, and K. Taguchi, editors, Proceedings of IFM’99. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Börger, A. Cavarra, and E. Riccobene. Modeling the dynamics of UML state machines. In Y. Gurevich, P. Kutter, M. Odersky, and L. Thiele, editors, Proceedings of ASM’00, LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Bowman and J. Derrick. A junction between state-based and behavioural specification. In P. Ciancarini, A. Fantechi, and R. Gorrieri, editors, Proceedings of FMOODS’ 99. Kluwer, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. J. Creese and A. W. Roscoe. Verifying an independent family of inductions simultaneously using data independence and fdr. In Proceedings of FORTE/PSTV’ 99. Kluwer Academic Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Duke, G. Rose, and G. Smith. Object-Z: a specification language advocated for the description of standards. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 17:511–533, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A.S. Evans, R.B. France, K.C. Lano, and B. Rumpe. Developing the UML as a formal modelling notation. In J. Bezivin and P.-A. Muller, editors, UML’98-Beyond the notation, volume 1618 of LNCS. Springer, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Fischer. How to combine Z with a process algebra. In J. Bowen, A. Fett, and M. Hinchey, editors, Proceedings of ZUM’ 98, volume 1493 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Fischer. Combination and implementation of processes and data: from csp-oz to java. PhD thesis, University of Oldenburg, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. B. France, J.-M. Bruel, M. M. Larrondo-Petrie, and M. Shroff. Exploring the semantics of UML type structures with Z. In H. Bowman and J. Derrick, editors, Proceedings of FMOODS’ 97, volume 2. Chapman and Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Harel. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming, 8, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. A. R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Latella, I. Majzik, and M. Massink. Towards a formal operational semantics of UML statechart diagrams. In A. Fantechi P. Ciancarini and R. Gorrieri, editors, Proceedings of FMOODS’ 99. Kluwer, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Lazic. A semantic study of data independence with applications to model checking. PhD thesis, University of Oxford, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Lilius and I. Porres Paltor. Formalising UML state machines for model checking. In R. France and B. Rumpe, editors, UML’99-The Unified Modeling Language, volume 1723 of LNCS. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language Specification, version 1.3. Rational Software Corporation, Santa Clara, CA 95051, USA, June 1999.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. L. Peterson. Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems. Prentice-Hall International, 1981.Google Scholar
  19. 21.
    A. W. Roscoe. The Theory and Practice of Concurrency. Prentice Hall Series in Computer Science, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 22.
    J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch. The Unified Modeling Language reference manual. Addison-Wesley, 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 23.
    G. Smith. The Object-Z specification language. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.Google Scholar
  22. 24.
    J. M. Spivey. The Z notation: a reference manual. Prentice-Hall International, 1992.Google Scholar
  23. 25.
    J. C. P. Woodcock and J. Davies. Using Z: Specification, Proof and Refinement. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christie Bolton
    • 1
  • Jim Davies
    • 1
  1. 1.Oxford University Computing Laboratory Wolfson BuildingOxford

Personalised recommendations