A Proposal for a Formal OCL Semantics in Isabelle/HOL

  • Achim D. Brucker
  • Burkhart Wolff
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2410)

Abstract

We present a formal semantics as a conservative shallow embedding of the Object Constraint Language (OCL). OCL is currently under development within an open standardization process within the OMG; our work is an attempt to accompany this process by a proposal solving open questions in a consistent way and exploring alternatives of the language design. Moreover, our encoding gives the foundation for tool supported reasoning over OCL specifications, for example as basis for test case generation.

Keywords

Isabelle OCL UML shallow embedding testing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Manfred Broy, Christian Facchi, Radu Grosu, Rudi Hettler, Heinrich Hussmann, Dieter Nazareth, Oscar Slotosch, Franz Regensburger, and Ketil Stølen. The requirement and design specification language Spectrum, an informal introduction (V 1.0). Technical Report TUM-I9312, TU München, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Achim D. Brucker and Burkhart Wolff. A note on design decisions of a formalization of the OCL. Technical Report 168, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jeremy Dick and Alain Faivre. Automating the generation and sequencing of test cases from model-based specications. In J.C.P. Woodcock and P.G. Larsen, editors, FME’93: Industrial-Strength Formal Methods, volume 670 of LNCS, pages 268–284. Springer, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reiner Hähnle. Automated Deduction in Multiple-valued Logics. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cliff B. Jones. Systematic Software Development Using VDM. Prentice Hall, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cris Kobryn. Will UML 2.0 be agile or awkward? CACM, 45(1):107–110, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Luis Mandel and Marìa Victoria Cengarle. On the expressive power of OCL. FM’99, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Luis Mandel and Marìa Victoria Cengarle. A formal semantics for OCL 1.4. In C. Kobryn M. Gogolla, editor, UML 2001: The Unified Modeling Language. Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools, volume 2185 of LNCS, Toronto, 2001. Springer.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wolfgang Naraschewski and Markus Wenzel. Object-oriented verification based on record subtyping in Higher-Order Logic. In J. Grundy and M. Newey, editors, Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics, volume 1479 of LNCS, pages 349–366. Springer, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tobias Nipkow, David von Oheimb, and Cornelia Pusch. μJava: Embedding a programming language in a theorem prover. In Friedrich L. Bauer and Ralf Steinbrüggen, editors, Foundations of Secure Computation, volume 175 of NATO Science Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences, pages 117–144. IOS Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. D. North. Automatic test generation for the triangle problem. Technical Report DITC 161/90, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    OMG. Object Constraint Language Specification. [13], chapter 6.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG. Unified Modeling Language Specification (Version 1.4). 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mark Richters and Martin Gogolla. On Formalizing the UML Object Constraint Language OCL. In Tok-Wang Ling, Sudha Ram, and Mong Li Lee, reditors, Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Conceptual Modeling (ER’98), volume 1507 of LNCS, pages 449–464. Springer, 1998.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thomas Santen. A Mechanized Logical Model of Z and Object-Oriented Specification. PhD thesis, Technical University Berlin, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. M. Spivey. The Z Notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jos Warmer and Anneke Kleppe. The Object Contraint Language: Precise Modelling with UML. Addison-Wesley Longman, Reading, USA, 1999.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jos Warmer, Anneke Kleppe, Tony Clark, Anders Ivner, Jonas Högström, Martin Gogolla, Mark Richters, Heinrich Hussmann, Steffen Zschaler, Simon Johnston, David S. Frankel, and Conrad Bock. Response to the UML 2.0 OCL RfP. Technical report, 2001.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glynn Winskel. The Formal Semantics of Programming Languages. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1993.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Achim D. Brucker
    • 1
  • Burkhart Wolff
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikAlbert-Ludwigs-UniversitätFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations