UML Semantics FAQ

  • Stuart Kent
  • Andy Evans
  • Bernhard Rumpe⋆
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1743)

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a workshop held at ECOOP’99. The workshop was set up to find answers to questions fundamental to the definition of a semantics for the Unified Modelling Language. Questions examined the meaning of the term semantics in the context of UML; approaches to defining the semantics, including the feasibility of the meta-modelling approach; whether a single semantics is desirable and, if not, how to set up a framework for defining multiple, interlinked semantics; and some of the outstanding problems for defining a semantics for all of UML.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    F. Civello. Roles for composite objects in object-oriented analysis and design. In OOPSLA’93 Conference Proceedings, ACM SIGPLAN Notices 23:10, October 1993.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Cook, A. Kleppe, R. Mitchell, B. Rumpe, J. Warmer, and A. Wills. Defining uml family members using prefaces. In C. Mingins and B. Meyer, editors, Proceedings of TOOLS Pacific 99. IEEE Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    W.R. Cook, W.R. Hill, and P.S. Canning. Inheritance is not subtyping. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, pages 125–135, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Desmond D’Souza and Alan Wills. Objects, Components and Frameworks With UML: The Catalysis Approach. Addison-Wesley, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A.S. Evans and S. Kent. Meta-modelling semantics of UML: the pUML approach. In B. Rumpe and R.B. France, editors, 2nd International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Robert Geisler. Precise UML semantics through formal metamodeling. In Luis Andrade, Ana Moreira, Akash Deshpande, and Stuart Kent, editors, Proceedings of the OOPSLA’98 Workshop on Formalizing UML. Why? How?, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Martin Gogolla and Mark Richters. Equivalence rules for UML class diagrams. In Pierre-Alain Muller and Jean Bézivin, editors, Proceedings of UML’98 International Workshop, Mulhouse, France, June 3–4, 1998, pages 87–96. ESSAIM, Mulhouse, France, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Object Management Group. UML specification version 1.3. Technical Report ad/99-06-08, June 1999.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    B. Henderson-Sellers and F. Barbier. Black and white diamonds. In B. Rumpe and R.B. France, editors, 2nd International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    B. Henderson-Sellers and F. Barbier. What is this thing called aggregation? In R. Mitchell, A.C. Wills, J. Bosch, and B. Meyer, editors, TOOLS29, pages 216–230. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    E. Rudolph, J. Grabowski, and P. Graubmann. Tutorial on message sequence charts (msc’96). Tutorials at First Joint Conference FORTE/PSTV’96, Kaiserslautern, Germany, October 1996.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    James Rumbaugh, Ivar Jacobson, and Grady Booch. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Guide. Addison-Wesley, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Bernhard Rumpe. A note on semantics (with an emphasis on UML). In Haim Kilov and Bernhard Rumpe, editors, Proceedings Second ECOOP Workshop on Precise Behavioral Semantics (with an Emphasis on OO Business Specifications), pages 177–197. Technische Universität München, TUM-I9813, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Monika Saksena, Robert France, and Maria Larrondo-Petri. A characterization of aggregation. In C. Rolland and G. Grosz, editors, Proceedings of OOIS98, pages 11–19. Springer, 1998.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    S. Sch÷nnberger and R.K. Keller. Algorithmic support for model transformation in object-oriented development. Publications of DIRO, August 1997.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    M. Snoeck and G. Dedene. Existence dependency: the key to semantic integrity between structural and behavioural aspects of object types. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 24(4):233–251, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart Kent
  • Andy Evans
  • Bernhard Rumpe⋆

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations