Rule-Based Specification of Behavioral Consistency Based on the UML Meta-model

  • Gregor Engels
  • Reiko Heckel
  • Jochen Malte Küster
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2185)


Object-oriented modeling favors the modeling of object behavior from different viewpoints and at different levels of abstraction. This gives rise to consistency problems between overlapping or semantically related submodels. The absence of a formal semantics for the UML and the numerous ways of employing the language within the development process lead to a number of different consistency notions. Therefore, general meta-level techniques are required for specifying, analyzing, and communicating consistency constraints. In this paper, we discuss the issue of consistency of behavioral models in the UML and present techniques for specifying and analyzing consistency. Using meta-model rules we transform elements of UML models into a semantic domain. Then, consistency constraints can by specified and validated using the language and the tools of the semantic domain. This general methodology is exemplified by the problem of protocol statechart inheritance.


meta modeling model verification behavioral consistency 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    L. Baresi and M. Pezzè. Improving UML with Petri nets. In A. Corradini and M. Bauderon, editors, Proc. ETAPS 2001 Workshop on Uniform Approaches to Graphical Process Specification Techniques (UniGra 2001), Genova, Italy, Electronic Notes in TCS 51. Elsevier Science, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Boiten, H. Bowman, J. Derrick, and M. Steen. Viewpoint consistency in Z and LOTOS: A case study. In J. Fitzgerald, C. B. Jones, and P. Lucas, editors, Proc. 4th Intl. Symposium of Formal Methods Europe, Graz, Austria, LNCS 1313, pages 644–664. Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Cheng, L. Campbell, and E. Wang. Enabling automated analysis through the formalization of object-oriented modeling diagrams. In Proc. IEEE Intl. Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks. IEEE Computer Society, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Ebert and G. Engels. Structural and behavioral views of OMT-classes. In E. Bertino and S. Urban, editors, Proc. Object-Oriented Methodologies and Systems, LNCS 858, pages 142–157. Springer-Verlag, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Engels and L. Groenewegen. Object-oriented modeling: A roadmap. In A. Finkelstein, editor, Future Of Software Engineering 2000, pages 105–116. ACM, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Engels, R. Hücking, St. Sauer, and A. Wagner. UML collaboration diagrams and their transformation to Java. In R. France and B. Rumpe, editors, Proc. UML’99, Fort Collins, CO, USA, LNCS 1723, pages 473–488. Springer-Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Engels, J. M. Küster, L. Groenewegen, and R. Heckel. A methodology for specifying and analyzing consistency of object-oriented behavioral models. In V. Gruhn, editor, Proc. European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC/FSE 2001), Vienna, Austria. To appear.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Formal Systems Europe (Ltd). Failures-Divergence-Refinement: FDR2 User Manual, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Fradet, D. Le Métayer, and M. Périn. Consistency checking for multiple view software architectures. In O. Nierstrasz and M. Lemoine, editors, Proc. European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC/FSE 1999), LNCS 1687, pages 410–428. Springer-Verlag / ACM Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Ghezzi and B. A. Nuseibeh. Special Issue on Managing Inconsistency in Software Development (1). IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(11), November 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Ghezzi and B. A. Nuseibeh. Special Issue on Managing Inconsistency in Software Development (2). IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(11), November 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Große-Rhode. Algebra transformation systems and their compositions. In Proc. Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 1998), LNCS 1382, pages 107–122. Springer-Verlag, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Harel and O. Kupferman. On the Inheritance of State-Based Object Behavior. Technical Report MCS99-12, Weizmann Institute of Science, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, June 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. A. R. Hoare. Communcating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    I. Jacobson, G. Booch, and J. Rumbaugh. The Unified Software Development Process. Addison Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. M. Küster and J. Stroop. Consistent design of embedded real-time systems with UML-RT. In Proc. 4th IEEE International Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC’2001), 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    X. Li and J. Lilius. Timing analysis of UML sequence diagrams. In R. France and B. Rumpe, editors, Proc. UML’99, Fort Collins, CO, USA, LNCS 1723, pages 661–674. Springer-Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Moreira and R. Clark. Combining object-oriented modeling and formal description techniques. In M. Tokoro and R. Pareschi, editors, Proc. 8th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP’94), LNCS 821, pages 344–364. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group. Analysis and design platform task force-white paper on the profile mechanism, April 1999.
  20. 20.
    Object Management Group. UML specification version 1.4, 2001.
  21. 21.
    T. W. Pratt. Pair grammars, graph languages and string-to-graph translations. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 5:560–595, 1971.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jean Louis Sourrouille. UML behavior: Inheritance and implementation in current object-oriented languages. In R. France and B. Rumpe, editors, Proc. UML’99, Fort Collins, CO, USA, LNCS 1723, pages 457–472. Springer-Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Markus Stumptner and Michael Schrefl. Behavior consistent inheritance in UML. In A. H. F. Laender, S. W. Liddle, and V. C. Storey, editors, Proc. 19th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, LNCS 1920. pages 527–542. Springer-Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregor Engels
    • 1
  • Reiko Heckel
    • 1
  • Jochen Malte Küster
  1. 1.Dept. of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations