A Meta-Model Semantics for Structural Constraints In UML

  • Stuart Kent
  • Stephen Gaito
  • Niall Ross
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 523)


The UML standard has adopted a meta-modelling approach to defining the abstract syntax of UML. A meta-modelling approach is taken essentially to aid the construction of automated tools, but the semantics is defined by statements in English. A meta-model that incorporates precise semantics would support the construction of tools that could perform semantically-oriented tasks, such as consistency checking. One approach to defining the formal semantics of a language is denotational: essentially elaborating (in mathematics) the value or instance denoted by an expression of the language in a particular context. However, instances must also be expressed in some language: in UML, instances of the static model are expressed using object diagrams. Thus a meta-model can be constructed which incorporates (a) the modelling language itself, (b) the modelling language of instances, and (c) the mapping of one into the other. The current UML meta-model provides some support for (a) and (b), but not (c). (c) is the part that carries the semantics. This paper presents one such meta-model, for a fragment of UML suitable for describing and constraining object structures. The fragment includes parts of class diagrams and invariants in the style of OCL. An indication is given as to how the approach could be extended to models characterising dynamic behaviour.


Modelling Language Class Diagram Structural Constraint Sequence Diagram State Diagram 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [S92]
    D. D’Souza, Education and Training: Teacher! Teacher!, Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, vol. 5, pp. 12–17, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. [SW99]
    D. D’Souza and A.C. Wills. Objects, Components and Frameworks with UML: The Catalysis Approach, Addison Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. [GHK99]
    Y. Gil, J. Howse, and S. Kent, Formalizing Spider Diagrams, submitted for publication, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. [K97]
    S. Kent. Constraint Diagrams: Visualising Invariants in Object Oriented Models. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA97, ACM Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. [KG98]
    S. Kent and Y. Gil, Visualising Action Contracts in OO Modelling, IEE Proceedings: Software, vol. 145, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. [S86]
    D.A. Schmidt, Denotational Semantics: A Methodology for Language Development, Allyn and Bacon, Massachusetts, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. [UML99]
    UML task force. UML 1.1. Specification, Object Management Group, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. [WK98]
    J. Warmer and A. Kleppe. The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modeling with UML, Addison-Wesley, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart Kent
    • 1
  • Stephen Gaito
    • 2
  • Niall Ross
    • 2
  1. 1.University of KentUK
  2. 2.Nortel NetworksUK

Personalised recommendations