Verifying Action Semantics Specifications in UML Behavioral Models

  • Elena Planas
  • Jordi Cabot
  • Cristina Gómez
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5565)

Abstract

MDD and MDA approaches require capturing the behavior of UML models in sufficient detail so that the models can be automatically implemented/executed in the production environment. With this purpose, Action Semantics (AS) were added to the UML specification as the fundamental unit of behavior specification. Actions are the basis for defining the fine-grained behavior of operations, activity diagrams, interaction diagrams and state machines. Unfortunately, current proposals devoted to the verification of behavioral schemas tend to skip the analysis of the actions they may include. The main goal of this paper is to cover this gap by presenting several techniques aimed at verifying AS specifications. Our techniques are based on the static analysis of the dependencies between the different actions included in the behavioral schema. For incorrect specifications, our method returns a meaningful feedback that helps repairing the inconsistency.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baker, P., Bristow, P., Jervis, C., King, D., Thomson, R., Mitchell, B., Burton, S.: Detecting and Resolving Semantic Pathologies in UML Sequence Diagrams. ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE, 50–59 (2005) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bollobas, B.: Modern graph theory. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: UMLtoCSP: a tool for the formal verification of UML/OCL models using constraint programming. ASE, 547–548 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cabot, J., Gómez, C.: Deriving Operation Contracts from UML Class Diagrams. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 196–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gallardo, M.M., Merino, P., Pimentel, E.: Debugging UML Designs with Model Checking. Journal of Object Technology 1(2), 101–117 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Egyed, A.: Instant Consistency Checking for the UML. In: ICSE, pp. 381–390 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Emerson, E.A.: Temporal and Modal Logic. Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science 8, 995–1072 (1990)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eshuis, R.: Symbolic Model Checking of UML Activity Diagrams. ACM Transactions on Soft. Eng. and Methodology 15(1), 1–38 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garousi, V., Briand, L., Labiche, Y.: Control Flow Analysis of UML 2.0 Sequence Diagrams. In: Hartman, A., Kreische, D. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3748, pp. 160–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Graw, G., Herrmann, P.: Transformation and Verification of Executable UML Models. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 101, 3–24 (2004)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grosu, R., Smolka, S.A.: Safety-Liveness Semantics for UML 2.0 Sequence Diagrams. In: ACSD, pp. 6–14 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The spin model checker: Primer and reference manual. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knapp, A., Wuttke, J.: Model checking of UML 2.0 interactions. In: Kühne, T. (ed.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4364, pp. 42–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Latella, D., Majzik, I., Massink, M.: Automatic Verification of a Behavioural Subset of UML Statechart Diagrams using the SPIN Model-Checker. Formal Aspects of Computing 11(6), 637–664 (1999)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lilius, J., Paltor, I.P.: Formalising UML State Machines for Model Checking. In: France, R.B., Rumpe, B. (eds.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 430–445. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marriott, K., Stuckey, P.J.: Programming with Constraints: An Introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mellor Stephen, J., Balcer Marc, J.: Executable UML: A foundation for model-driven architecture. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ober, I., Graf, S., Ober, I.: Validating Timed UML Models by Simulation and Verification. Int. Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 8(2), 128–145 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group (OMG): UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification. OMG Adopted Specification (ptc/07-11-02) (2007) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Semantics of a Foundational Subset for Executable UML Models RFP (ad/2005-04-02) (2005) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Olivé, A.: Conceptual Schema-Centric Development: A Grand Challenge for Information Systems Research. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Planas, E., Cabot, J., Gómez, C.: Verifying Action Semantics Specifications in UML Behavioral Models (Extended Version). LSI-09-6-R LSI Research Report, UPC (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rasch, H., Wehrheim, H.: Checking Consistency in UML Diagrams: Classes and State Machines. In: Najm, E., Nestmann, U., Stevens, P. (eds.) FMOODS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2884, pp. 229–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Turner, E., Treharne, H., Schneider, S., Evans, N.: Automatic Generation of CSP || B Skeletons from xUML Models. In: Fitzgerald, J.S., Haxthausen, A.E., Yenigun, H. (eds.) ICTAC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5160, pp. 364–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Der Straeten, R., Mens, T., Simmonds, J., Jonckers, V.: Using Description Logic to Maintain Consistency between UML Models. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 326–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Xie, F., Levin, V., Browne, J.C.: Model Checking for an Executable Subset of UML. ASE, 333–336 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Planas
    • 1
  • Jordi Cabot
    • 1
  • Cristina Gómez
    • 2
  1. 1.Estudis d’Informàtica, Multimèdia i TelecomunicacionsUniversitat Oberta de CatalunyaSpain
  2. 2.Dept. de Llenguatges i Sistemes InformàticsUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaSpain

Personalised recommendations