HOL-OCL: Experiences, Consequences and Design Choices

  • Achim D. Brucker
  • Burkhart Wolff
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2460)


Based on experiences gained from an embedding of the Object Constraint Language (OCL)in higher-order logic [3 ],we explore several key issues of the design of a formal semantics of the OCL. These issues comprise the question of the interpretation of invariants, pre-and postconditions, an executable sub-language and the possibilities of refinement notions.A particular emphasize is put on the issue of mechanized deduction in UML/OCL specification.


OCL formal semantics constraint languages refinement 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [2]
    Peter B. Andrews. An Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory: To Truth Through Proof Academic Press, May 1986.Google Scholar
  2. [3]
    Achim D. Brucker and Burkhart Wolff. A proposal for a formal OCL semantics in Isabelle/HOL. In César Muñoz, Sophiène Tahar, and Víctor Carreño,editors, TPHOLs 2002 LNCS.Springer, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. [4]
    Alonzo Church.A formulation of the simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic 5:56–68,1940.Google Scholar
  4. [5]
    Steve Cook, Anneke Kleppe, Richard Mitchell, Bernhard Rumpe, Jos Warmer, and Alan Wills. The Amsterdam Manifesto on OCL.Technical Report TUM-I9925, TU München,1999.Google Scholar
  5. [6]
    Mike J.C. Gordon and Tom F. Melham. Introduction to HOL Cambridge Press, July 1993.Google Scholar
  6. [7]
    Elsa L. Gunter and Myra VanInwegen. HOL-ML. In Jeffery Joyce and Carl Seger, editors, Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and Its Applications LNCS 780, pages 61–73.Springer, February 1994.Google Scholar
  7. [8]
    Paul R. Halmos. Naive Set Theory van Nostrand,1979.Google Scholar
  8. [9]
    Rolf Hennicker, Heinrich Hussmann, and Michel Bidoit. On the precise meaning of OCL constraints.In T. Clar and J. Warmer, editors, Advances in Object Modelling with the OCL LNCS 2263, pages 69–84.Springer, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [10]
    Cliff.B. Jones.Systematic Software Development Using VDMPrentice Hall,1990.Google Scholar
  10. [11]
    Kolyang, T.Santen, and B. Wolff.A structure preserving encoding of Z in Isabelle/HOL.In J. von Wright, J. Grundy, and J. Harrison,editors,TPHOLs LNCS 1125. Springer,1996.Google Scholar
  11. [12]
    Luis Mandel and María Victoria Cengarle.A formal semantics for OCL 1.4.In C. Kobryn M. Gogolla,editor,UML 2001 LNCS 2185.Springer,2001.Google Scholar
  12. [13]
    P.D. Mosses. Denotational semantics.chapter 11.Elsevier,1 edition,1990.Google Scholar
  13. [14]
    Tobias Nipkow, David von Oheimb, and Cornelia Pusch. /gmJava 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
  14. [15]
    David von Oheimb and Tobias Nipkow. Hoare logic for NanoJava:Auxiliary variables,side effects and virtual methods revisited.In Lars-Henrik Eriksson and Peter Alexander Lindsay,editors, Formal Methods-Getting IT Right (FME’02), LNCS 2391, pages 89–105.Springer,2002.Google Scholar
  15. [16]
    OMG.Object Constraint Language Specification. chapter 6. 2001.Google Scholar
  16. [17]
    Lawrence C. Paulson. Isabelle: A generic theorem prover LNCS 825. Springer, 1994.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [18]
    Mark Richters and Martin Gogolla. On Formalizing the UML Object Constraint Language OCL.In Conceptual Modeling (ER 1998).Google Scholar
  18. [19]
    J.M. Spivey. The Z Notation: A Reference Manual Prentice Hall, 2nd edition, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. [20]
    H. Tej and B. Wolff. A corrected failure-divergence model for CSP in Isabelle/HOL.In J. Fitzgerald, C.B. Jones, and P. Lucas,editors, FME 97 LNCS1313.Springer,1997.Google Scholar
  20. [21]
    Jos Warmer and Anneke Kleppe.The Object Contraint Language: Precise Modelling with UML Addison-Wesley,1999.Google Scholar
  21. [22]
    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, March 2002.Google Scholar
  22. [23]
    Glynn Winskel. The Formal Semantics of Programming Languages MIT Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  23. [24]
    Jim Woodock and Jim Davies.Using Z Prentice Hall,1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations