Sufficient Criteria for Consistent Behavior Modeling with Refined Activity Diagrams

  • Stefan Jurack
  • Leen Lambers
  • Katharina Mehner
  • Gabriele Taentzer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5301)

Abstract

In use case-driven approaches to requirements modeling, UML activity diagrams are a wide-spread means for refining the functional view of use cases. Early consistency validation of activity diagrams is therefore desirable but difficult due to the semi-formal nature of activity diagrams. In this paper, we specify well-structured activity diagrams and define activities more precisely by pre- and post- conditions. They can be modeled by interrelated pairs of object diagrams based on a domain class diagram. This activity refinement is based on the theory of graph transformation and paves the ground for a consistency analysis of the required system behavior. A formal semantics for activity diagrams refined by pre- and post-conditions allows us to establish sufficient criteria for consistency. The semi-automatic checking of these criteria is supported by a tool for graph transformation.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    OMG: UML Resource Page of the Object Management Group, http://www.uml.org/
  2. 2.
    Hausmann, J., Heckel, R., Taentzer, G.: Detection of Conflicting Functional Requirements in a Use Case-Driven Approach. In: Proc. of Int. Conference on Software Engineering 2002, Orlando, USA. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mehner, K., Monga, M., Taentzer, G.: Interaction Analysis in Aspect-Oriented Models. In: Proc. 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, pp. 66–75. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mehner, K., Monga, M., Taentzer, G.: Analysis of Aspect-Oriented Model Weaving. LNCS Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development (to appear, 2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lambers, L., Ehrig, H., Taentzer, G.: Sufficient Criteria for Applicability and Non-Applicability of Rule Sequences. In: Ermel, C., Heckel, R., de Lara, J. (eds.) Proc. International Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques (GTVMT 2008), vol. 10, Electronic Communications of the EASST (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lambers, L., Mariani, L., Ehrig, H., Pezze, M.: A Formal Framework for Developing Adaptable Service-Based Applications. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Inverardi, P. (eds.) FASE 2008. LNCS, vol. 4961, pp. 392–406. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Come, Let’s Play - Scenario-Based Programming Using LSCs and the Play-Engine. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    AGG: AGG Homepage, http://tfs.cs.tu-berlin.de/agg
  9. 9.
    Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lambers, L., Ehrig, H., Orejas, F., Prange, U.: Parallelism and Concurrency in Adhesive High-Level Replacement Systems with Negative Application Conditions. In: Ehrig, H., Pfalzgraf, J., Prange, U. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACCAT workshop at ETAPS 2007. ENTCS. Elsevier, Amsterdam (to appear, 2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jurack, S., Lambers, L., Mehner, K., Taentzer, G.: Sufficient criteria for consistent behavior modeling with refined activity diagrams: Long version. Technical Report 2008/11, Technische Universität Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eshuis, R., Wieringa, R.: Tool support for verifying UML activity diagrams. IEEE Trans. on Software Eng. 7(30) (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stoerrle, H.: Semantics of UML 2.0 Activity Diagrams. In: International Conference on Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing VLHCC. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jayaraman, P., Whittle, J., Elkhodary, A., Gomaa, H.: Model Composition in Product Lines and Feature Interaction Detection Using Critical Pair Analysis. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fujaba: Fujaba Homepage, http://www.fujaba.de
  16. 16.
    Moflon: Moflon Homepage, http://www.moflon.org

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Jurack
    • 1
  • Leen Lambers
    • 2
  • Katharina Mehner
    • 3
  • Gabriele Taentzer
    • 1
  1. 1.Philipps-Universität MarburgGermany
  2. 2.Technische Universität BerlinGermany
  3. 3.Siemens, Corporate TechnologyGermany

Personalised recommendations