A New UML Profile for Real-Time System Formal Design and Validation

  • L. Apvrille
  • P. de Saqui-Sannes
  • C. Lohr
  • P. Sénac
  • J. -P. Courtiat
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2185)


UML solutions in competition on the real-time system market share three common drawbacks: an incomplete formal semantics, temporal operators with limited expression and analysis power, and implementation-oriented tools with limited verification capabilities. To overcome these limitations, the paper proposes a UML profile designed with real-time system validation in mind. Extended class diagrams with associations attributed by composition operators give an explicit semantics to associations between classes. Enhanced activity diagrams with a deterministic delay, a non deterministic delay and a timelimited offering make it possible to work with temporal intervals in lieu of timers with fixed duration. The UML profile is given a precise semantics via its translation into the Formal Description Technique RT-LOTOS. A RT-LOTOS validation tool generates simulation chronograms and reachability graphs for RT-LOTOS specifications derived from UML class and activity diagrams. A coffee machine serves as example. The proposed profile is under evaluation on a satellite-based software reconfiguration system.


Composition Operator Class Diagram Activity Diagram Parallel Composition Object Management Group 
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.
    André, C.: Object and synchronous paradigms in real-time systems (in French). Journée Objets Temps Réel du Club SEE Systémes Informatiques de Confiance, Paris, 18 January 2001.
  2. 2.
    Andriantsiferana L., Courtiat J.-P., de Oliveira R. C., Picci L.: An experiment in using RTLOTOS for the formal specification and verification of a distributed scheduling algorithm in a nuclear power plant monitoring system Proceedings IFIP Formal Description Techniques X, Osaka, Japan, November 97, Chapman & Hall (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apvrille L., de Saqui-Sannes P., Sénac P., Diaz M.: Formal Modeling of Space-Based Software in the Context of Dynamic Reconfiguration, Proceedings of DAta Systems In Aerospace (DASIA), 28 May-1st June, 2001, Nice, France (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Artisan Software Tools: (1999)
  5. 5.
    Bjorkander M.: Real-Time Systems in UML and SDL, Embedded System Engineering, October/November 2000 (
  6. 6.
    Dupuy S., Ledru Y., Chabre-Peccoud M.: Towards a useful integration of semi-formal and formal notations: an experiment with UML and Z (in French), Vol.6, No.1, Hermés, Paris (2000) 9–32Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruel, J.-M. France R. B.: Transforming UML Models to Formal Specifications, Proceedings of the International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Language and Applications (OOPSLA’98), Vancouver, Canada (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bruel J.-M.: Integrating Formal and Informal Specification Techniques. Why? How?, Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on Industrial-Strength Formal Specification Techniques (WIFT’98), Boca Raton, Florida, USA, IEEE Computer Press (1999) 50–57Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Terrier, F, Gérard, S: Real Time System Modeling with UML: Current Status and Some Prospects, Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop of the SDL Forum society on SDL and MSC, SAM 2000, Grenoble, France (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Courtiat J.-P., Santos C. A. S., Lohr C., Outtaj B.: Experience with RT-LOTOS, a Temporal Extension of the LOTOS Formal Description Technique, Computer Communications, Vol. 23, No. 12 (2000) 1104–1123Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Douglass B. P.: Doing Hard Time: Developing Real-Time Systems with UML, Objects, Frameworks and Patterns, Addison-Wesley Longman (1999) (
  12. 12.
    Dupuy S., du Bouquet L.: A Multi-formalism Approach for the Validation of UML Models, Formal Aspects of Computing, No.12 (2001) p.228–230Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Evans A. S., Cook S., Mellor S., Warmer J., Wills A.: Advanced Methods and Tools for a Precise UML, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, UML’99, Colorado, USA, LNCS 1723 (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Le Guennec, A.: Formal Methods with UML Modeling, Validation and Test Generation, Proceedings of CFIP’2000", Toulouse, October 2000, Hermés, p.151–166 (2000) (in French)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bolognesi T, Brinksma E.: Introduction to the ISO specification Language LOTOS, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol 14, No1 (1987)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jard C., Jézéquel J.-M., Pennaneac’h F.: Towards Using Protocol Validation Tools in UML, Technique et Science Informatiques, Vol. 17, No9, Hermés, Paris, p. 1083–1098 (1998) (in French)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification. Version 1.3, Object Management Group (1999)
  18. 18.
    Object Management Group, UML Profile for Scheduling, Performance, and Time, Request for Proposal (1999)
  19. 19.
    Delatour J. Paludetto M.: UML/PNO, a way to merge UML and Petri net objects for the analysis of real-time systems, OO Technology and Real Time Systems Workshop (ECOOP’98), Bruxelles, Belgium (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hernalsteen C., Specification, Validation and Verification of Real-Time Systems in ETLOTOS, Ph.D. dissertation, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    de Saqui-Sannes P., “Diagramming TURTLE classes using Rhapsody”, ENSICA internal report (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Selic B., Rumbaugh J.: Using UML for Modeling Complex Real-Time Systems, (1998)
  23. 23.
    Sénac P., Diaz M., de Saqui-Sannes P., Léger A.: Modeling Logical and Temporal Synchronization in Hypermedia Systems", IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communication, special issue on multimedia synchronization (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Traoré I.: An Outline of PVS Semantics for UML Statecharts, Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol. 6, No. 11 ’2000) 1088–1108zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clarck, R. G., Moreira, A. M. D.: Use of E-LOTOS in Adding Formality to UML, Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol.6, no 11, p. 1071–1087 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Apvrille
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • P. de Saqui-Sannes
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. Lohr
    • 2
  • P. Sénac
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. -P. Courtiat
    • 2
  1. 1.ENSICAToulouse Cedex 05France
  2. 2.LAAS-CNRSToulouse Cedex 04France
  3. 3.Alcatel Space IndustriesToulouse Cedex 01France

Personalised recommendations