Towards Domain Refinement for UML/OCL Bounded Verification

  • Robert Clarisó
  • Carlos A. González
  • Jordi Cabot
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9276)


Correctness of UML class diagrams annotated with OCL constraints can be checked using bounded verification, e.g. SAT solvers. Bounded verification detects faults efficiently but, on the other hand, the absence of faults does not guarantee a correct behavior outside the bounded domain. Hence, choosing suitable bounds is a non-trivial process as there is a trade-off between the verification time (faster for smaller domains) and the confidence in the result (better for larger domains). Unfortunately, existing tools provide little support in this choice.

This paper presents a technique that can be used to (i) automatically infer verification bounds whenever possible, (ii) tighten a set of bounds proposed by the user and (iii) guide the user in the bound selection process. This approach may increase the usability of UML/OCL bounded verification tools and improve the efficiency of the verification process.


  1. 1.
    Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Georg, G., Ray, I.: On challenges of model transformation from UML to Alloy. Softw. Syst. Model. 9(1), 69–86 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apt, K.R., Wallace, M.: Constraint Logic Programming using ECLiPSe. Cambridge University Press, New York (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balaban, M., Maraee, A.: Simplification and correctness of UML class diagrams – focusing on multiplicity and aggregation/composition constraints. In: Moreira, A., Schätz, B., Gray, J., Vallecillo, A., Clarke, P. (eds.) MODELS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8107, pp. 454–470. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artif. Intell. 168(1–2), 70–118 (2005)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bordeaux, L., Katsirelos, G., Narodytska, N., Vardi, M.Y.: The complexity of integer bound propagation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 40, 657–676 (2011)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: On the verification of UML/OCL class diagrams using constraint programming. J. Syst. Softw. 93, 1–23 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi, Y., Heimdahl, M.: Model checking software requirement specifications using domain reduction abstraction. In: ASE 2003, pp. 314–317. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feinerer, I., Salzer, G., Sisel, T.: Reducing multiplicities in class diagrams. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) MODELS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6981, pp. 379–393. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Galeotti, J.P., Rosner, N., Pombo, C.G.L., Frias, M.F.: Taco: efficient SAT-based bounded verification using symmetry breaking and tight bounds. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(9), 1283–1307 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    González, C.A., Cabot, J.: Formal verification of static software models in MDE: a systematic review. Inf. Softw. Tech. 56(8), 821–838 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuhlmann, M., Gogolla, M.: From UML and OCL to relational logic and back. In: France, R.B., Kazmeier, J., Breu, R., Atkinson, C. (eds.) MODELS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7590, pp. 415–431. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: Verification and validation of UML conceptual schemas with OCL constraints. ACM TOSEM 21(2), 13:1–13:41 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosner, N., Galeotti, J.P., Lopez Pombo, C.G., Frias, M.F.: ParAlloy: towards a framework for efficient parallel analysis of alloy models. In: Frappier, M., Glässer, U., Khurshid, S., Laleau, R., Reeves, S. (eds.) ABZ 2010. LNCS, vol. 5977, pp. 396–397. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seiter, J., Wille, R., Soeken, M., Drechsler, R.: Determining relevant model elements for the verification of UML/OCL specifications. In: DATE 2013, pp. 1189–1192. EDA Consortium (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shaikh, A., Clarisó, R., Wiil, U.K., Memon, N.: Verification-driven slicing of UML/OCL models. In: ASE 2010, pp. 185–194. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Soeken, M., Wille, R., Kuhlmann, M., Gogolla, M., Drechsler, R.: Verifying UML/OCL models using Boolean satisfiability. In: DATE 2010, pp. 1341–1344. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yu, F., Bultan, T., Peterson, E.: Automated size analysis for OCL. In: FSE 2007, pp. 331–340. ACM (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Clarisó
    • 1
  • Carlos A. González
    • 2
  • Jordi Cabot
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Universitat Oberta de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.AtlanMod team (Inria, Mines Nantes, LINA)NantesFrance
  3. 3.ICREABarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations