Analysing UML Active Classes and Associated State Machines - A Lightweight Formal Approach

  • G. Reggio
  • E. Astesiano
  • C. Choppy
  • H. Hussmann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1783)


We propose a precise definition of UML active classes through associated labelled transition systems using the algebraic Specification language Casl. We are convinced that the first step to make UML precise is to find an underlying formal model for the systems modelled by UML, and we argue that labelled transition systems are a sensible choice. This modelization will help understanding the UML constructs and will improve their use in practice. One of our aims is, in the future, to use the powerful animation and verification tools available for algebraic specifications with UML Specifications. We simplify the problem of the applicability of our semantics by restricting the state machine constructs considered. This restriction does not, however, narrow the UML subset in study because the restricted constructs can be replaced by equivalent combinations of other constructs. Because of some ambiguities in the UML official semantics, we discuss the several options at hand and choose, for each ambiguous case, the semantics that either makes more sense or that allows to simplify the problem the most.


State Machine Class Diagram Active Object Label Transition System Operation Call 
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.


  1. [1]
    E. Astesiano, A. Giovini, F. Mazzanti, G. Reggio, and E. Zucca. The Ada Challenge for New Formal Semantic Techniques. In Ada: Managing the Transition, Proc. of the Ada-Europe Conference, Edimburgh, 1986, pages 239–248. University Press, Cambridge, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    R. Breu, R. Grosu, F. Huber, B. Rumpe, and W. Schwerin. Systems, Views and Models of UML. In M. Schader and A. Korthaus, editors, The Unified Modeling Language, Technical Aspects and Applications. Physica Verlag, Heidelberg, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    E. Coscia and G. Reggio. A Proposal for a Semantics of a Subset of Multi-Threaded Good Java Programs. Technical report, Imperial College-London, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    G. Costa and G. Reggio. Specification of Abstract Dynamic Data Types: A Temporal Logic Approach. T.C.S., 173(2):513–554, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Gogolla and F. Parisi-Presicce. State Diagrams in UML-A Formal Semantics using Graph Transformation. In M. Broy, D. Coleman, T. Maibaum, and B. Rumpe, editors, Proc. ICSE’98 Workshop on Precise Semantics of Modeling Techniques(PSMT’98), Technical Report TUM-I9803, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    K. Lano and J. Bicarregui. Formalising the UML in Structured Temporal Theories. In B. Rumpe H. Kilov, editor, Proc. of Second ECOOP Workshop on Precise Behavioral Semantics, ECOOP’98, Munich, Germany, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. Lillius and I Paltor. Formalising UML State Machines for Model Checking. In R France and B. Rumpe, editors, Proc. UML’99, LNCS. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    P.D. Mosses. CoFI: The Common Framework Initiative for Algebraic Specification and Development. In M. Bidoit and M. Dauchet, editors, Proc. TAPSOFT’ 97, number 1214 in LNCS, pages 115–137, Berlin, 1997. Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    OMG. White paper on the Profile Mechanism — Version 1.0., 1999.
  10. [10]
    The CoFI Task Group on Language Design. Casl Summary. Version 1.0. Technical report, 1998. Available on
  11. [11]
    G. Reggio, E. Astesiano, C. Choppy, and H. Hussmann. A Casl Formal Definition of UML Active Classes and Associated State Machines. Technical Report DISI-TR-99-16, DISI — Università di Genova, Italy, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. Rumbaugh. Some questions relating to actions and their parameter, and relating to signals. Private communication, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    UML Revision Task Force. OMG UML Specification, 1999. Available at

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Reggio
    • 1
  • E. Astesiano
    • 1
  • C. Choppy
    • 2
  • H. Hussmann
    • 3
  1. 1.DISIUniversità di GenovaItaly
  2. 2.LIPN, Institut GaliléeUniversité Paris XIIIFrance
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceDresden University of TechnologyGermany

Personalised recommendations