Advertisement

An ASM Semantics for UML Activity Diagrams

  • Egon Börger
  • Alessandra Cavarra
  • Elvinia Riccobene
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1816)

Abstract

We provide a rigorous semantics for one of the central diagram types which are used in UML for the description of dynamical system behavior, namely activity diagrams. We resolve for these diagrams some of the ambiguities which arise from different interpretations of UML models. Since we phrase our definition in terms of Abstract State Machines, we define at the same time an interesting subclass of ASMs, offering the possibility to exploit the UML tool support for using these special ASMs in the practice of software design. We apply these Activity Diagram Machines for a succinct definition of the semantics of OCCAM.

Keywords

Activity Node Activity Diagram Abstract State Machine Entry Action Dynamical System Behavior 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    G. Booch, J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, The Unified Modeling Language User Guide, Addison Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Börger, High Level System Design and Analysis using Abstract State Machines; in D. Hutter, W. Stephan, P. Traverso, M. Ullmann (eds): Current Trends in Applied Formal Methods (FM-Trends 98), Springer LNCS 1641, pp. 1–43, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Börger E., Durdanovic I., Correctness of Compiling Occam to Transputer Code; in: The Computer Journal, Vol. 39, No.1, pp.52–92, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Börger, J. Schmid, Composition and Submachine Concepts for Sequential ASMs. Gurevich Festschrift, Proc. CSL’2000 (to appear).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Evans, J-M. Bruel, R. France, K. Lano, B. Rumpe, Making UML Precise, OOPSLA’98 Workshop on “Formalizing UML. Why and How?” October 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Evans, R. France, K. Lano, B. Rumpe, The UML as a formal modeling notation, UML98-Beyond the notation, Springer LNCS, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R.B. France, A.S. Evans, K.C. Lano, and B. Rumpe, Developing the UML as a formal modeling notation; in Computer Standards and Interfaces: Special Issues on Formal Development Techniques, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Y. Gurevich, Evolving Algebras 1993: Lipari Guide; in E. Börger (Ed.): Specification and Validation Methods, Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Harel, A. Naamad, The STATEMATE Semantics of Statecharts, ACM Trans.Soft.Eng. method 5(4), 1996, 293–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Harel, M. Politi, Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts, McGraw-Hill, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rational Software Corporation, Unified Modeling Language (UML), version 1.3, http://www.rational.com, 1999.
  12. 12.
    J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, G. Booch, The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, Addison Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    UML Notation Guide, 1999. (Published as part of [11]).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    UML 1.3 Semantics, 1999. (Published as part of [11]).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Egon Börger
    • 1
  • Alessandra Cavarra
    • 2
  • Elvinia Riccobene
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità di PisaPisa
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Matematica e InformaticaUniversità di CataniaCatania

Personalised recommendations