Advertisement

Model Checking of UML 2.0 Interactions

  • Alexander Knapp
  • Jochen Wuttke
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4364)

Abstract

The UML 2.0 integrates a dialect of High-Level Message Sequence Charts (HMSCs) for interaction modelling. We describe a translation of UML 2.0 interactions into automata for model checking whether an interaction can be satisfied by a given set of message exchanging UML state machines. The translation supports basic interactions, state invariants, strict and weak sequencing, alternatives, ignores, and loops as well as forbidden interaction fragments. The translation is integrated into the UML model checking tool Hugo/RT.

Keywords

Scenarios UML 2.0 interactions model checking 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.0. (2005) http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/05-07-04 (06/07/18)
  2. 2.
    International Telecommunication Union: Message Sequence Chart (MSC). ITU-T Recommendation Z.120, ITU-T, Geneva (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cengarle, M.V., Knapp, A.: UML 2.0 Interactions: Semantics and Refinement. In: Jürjens, J., Fernandez, E.B., France, R., Rumpe, B. (eds.) Proc. 3rd Int. Wsh. Critical Systems Development with UML (CSDUML’04), Technical Report TUM-I0415, pp. 85–99. Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Runde, R.K., Haugen, Ø., Stølen, K.: Refining UML Interactions with Underspecification and Nondeterminism. Nordic J. Comp. 12(2), 157–188 (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hugo/RT website: http://www.pst.ifi.lmu.de/projekte/hugo (06/07/18) (2000)
  6. 6.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    UPPAAL website: http://www.uppaal.com (06/07/18) (1995)
  8. 8.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alur, R., Yannakakis, M.: Model Checking of Message Sequence Charts. In: Baeten, J.C.M., Mauw, S. (eds.) CONCUR 1999. LNCS, vol. 1664, pp. 114–129. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leue, S., Ladkin, P.B.: Implementing and Verifying MSC Specifications Using Promela/XSpin. In: Gregoire, J.-C., Holzmann, G.J., Peled, D. (eds.) Proc. 2nd Int. Wsh. SPIN Verification System (SPIN’96). Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 32, pp. 65–89. American Mathematical Society (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Incremental Elaboration of Scenario-based Specifications and Behavior Models using Implied Scenarios. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 13(1), 37–85 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brill, M., Damm, W., Klose, J., Westphal, B., Wittke, H.: Live Sequence Charts. In: Ehrig, H., Damm, W., Desel, J., Große-Rhode, M., Reif, W., Schnieder, E., Westkämper, E. (eds.) Integration of Software Specification Techniques for Applications in Engineering. LNCS, vol. 3147, pp. 374–399. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baranov, S., Jervis, C., Kotlyarov, V., Letichevsky, A., Weigert, T.: Leveraging UML to Deliver Correct Telecom Applications. In: Lavagno, L., Martin, G., Selic, B. (eds.) UML for Real, pp. 323–342. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schäfer, T., Knapp, A., Merz, S.: Model Checking UML State Machines and Collaborations. In: Stoller, S., Visser, W. (eds.) Proc. Wsh. Software Model Checking, Paris. Elect. Notes Theo. Comp. Sci., vol. 55(3) (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Synthesis of Behavioral Models from Scenarios. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 29(2), 99–115 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Damm, W., Harel, D.: LSCs: Breathing Life into Message Sequence Charts. Formal Meth. Sys. Design 19(1), 45–80 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klose, J.: Live Sequence Charts: A Graphical Formalism for the Specification of Communication Behaviour. PhD thesis, Carl von Ossietzky-Universität Oldenburg (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bontemps, Y., Heymans, P.: Turning High-Level Live Sequence Charts into Automata. In: Proc. ICSE Wsh. Scenarios and State-Machines: Models, Algorithms and Tools (SCESM’02), Orlando (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harel, D., Maoz, S.: Assert and Negate Revisited: Modal Semantics for UML Sequence Diagrams. In: Proc. 5th Int. Wsh. Scenarios and State Machines: Models, Algorithms, and Tools (SCESM’06), pp. 13–20. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Autili, M., Inverardi, P., Pelliccione, P.: A Scenario Based Notation for Specifying Temporal Properties. In: Proc. 5th Int. Wsh. Scenarios and State Machines: Models, Algorithms, and Tools (SCESM’06), pp. 21–27. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Knapp
    • 1
  • Jochen Wuttke
    • 2
  1. 1.Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenGermany
  2. 2.Università della Svizzera Italiana, LuganoSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations