Advertisement

Analysis of UML Activities Using Dynamic Meta Modeling

  • Gregor Engels
  • Christian Soltenborn
  • Heike Wehrheim
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4468)

Abstract

Dynamic Meta Modeling (DMM) is a universal approach to defining semantics for languages syntactically grounded on meta models. DMM has been designed with the aim of getting highly understandable yet precise semantic models which in particular allow for a formal analysis. In this paper, we exemplify this by showing how DMM can be used to give a semantics to and define an associated analysis technique for UML Activities.

Keywords

UML semantics behavior verification DMM 

References

  1. 1.
    Engels, G., Hausmann, J.H., Heckel, R., Sauer, S.: Dynamic Meta-Modeling: A Graphical Approach to the Operational Semantics of Behavioral Diagrams in UML. In: Evans, A., Kent, S., Selic, B. (eds.) UML 2000. LNCS, vol. 1939, Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hausmann, J.H.: Dynamic Meta Modeling. PhD thesis, University of Paderborn (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OMG: Model Driven Architecture. http://www.omg.org/mda/
  4. 4.
    Ehrig, H., Engels, G., Kreowski, H.J., Rozenberg, G. (eds.): Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation. Applications, Languages and Tools, vol. 2. World Scientific Publisher, Singapore (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Störrle, H.: Semantics of Control-Flow in UML 2.0 Activities. In: VL/HCC, pp. 235–242. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bolton, C., Davies, J.: On Giving a Behavioural Semantics to Activity Graphs, Online proceedings. In: Evans, A., Kent, S., Selic, B. (eds.) UML 2000. LNCS, vol. 1939, Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Börger, E., Cavarra, A., Riccobene, E.: An ASM Semantics for UML Activity Diagrams. In: Rus, T. (ed.) AMAST 2000. LNCS, vol. 1816, pp. 293–308. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hausmann, J.H., Störrle, H.: Towards a Formal Semantics of UML 2.0 Activities. Software Engineering 2005 P-64, 117–128 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Aalst, W.: Verification of Workflow Nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rensink, A.: The GROOVE Simulator: A Tool for State Space Generation. In: Pfaltz, J.L., Nagl, M., Böhlen, B. (eds.) AGTIVE 2003. LNCS, vol. 3062, pp. 479–485. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clarke, E., Emerson, E., Sistla, A.: Automatic Verification of Finite State Concurrent Systems Using Temporal Logic Specifications: A Practical Approach. In: Conference Record of the Tenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 117–126. ACM Press, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Aalst, W., van Hee, K.: Workflow Management - Models, Methods, and Systems. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Object Management Group: UML Specification V2.0 (2005) http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/modeling_spec_catalog.htm
  14. 14.
    Object Management Group: The MOF Specification (2004), http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/00-04-03
  15. 15.
    Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Löwe, M., Montanari, U., Padberg, J.: The Category of Typed Graph Grammars and its Adjunctions with Categories. In: Cuny, J., Engels, G., Ehrig, H., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Graph Grammars and Their Application to Computer Science. LNCS, vol. 1073, pp. 56–74. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kastenberg, H., Rensink, A.: Model checking dynamic states in GROOVE. In: Valmari, A. (ed.) Model Checking Software. LNCS, vol. 3925, pp. 299–305. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kindler, E., van der Aalst, W.: Liveness, Fairness, and Recurrence in Petri Nets. Inf. Process. Lett. 70(6), 269–270 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Soltenborn, C.: Analysis of UML Workflow Diagrams with Dynamic Meta Modeling techniques. Master’s thesis, University of Paderborn (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rensink, A.: GROOVE: A Graph Transformation Tool Set for the Simulation and Analysis of Graph Grammars (2003), Available at http://www.cs.utwente.nl/~groove
  20. 20.
    Störrle, H., Hausmann, J.H.: Towards a Formal Semantics of UML 2.0 Activities. In: Liggesmeyer, P., Pohl, K., Goedicke, M. (eds.) Software Engineering. LNI., GI, vol. 64, pp. 117–128 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Störrle, H.: Semantics and Verification of Data Flow in UML 2.0 Activities. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 127(4), 35–52 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eshuis, R.: Symbolic model checking of UML Activity diagrams. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 15(1), 1–38 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Giunchiglia, E., Giunchiglia, F., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Sebastiani, R., Tacchella, A.: NuSMV 2: An Opensource Tool for Symbolic Model Checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 359–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregor Engels
    • 1
  • Christian Soltenborn
    • 1
  • Heike Wehrheim
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität Paderborn, Institut für Informatik, 33098 PaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations