Reasoning on UML Conceptual Schemas with Operations

  • Anna Queralt
  • Ernest Teniente
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5565)

Abstract

A conceptual schema specifies the relevant information about the domain and how this information changes as a result of the execution of operations. The purpose of reasoning on a conceptual schema is to check whether the conceptual schema is correctly specified. This task is not fully formalizable, so it is desirable to provide the designer with tools that assist him or her in the validation process. To this end, we present a method to translate a conceptual schema with operations into logic, and then propose a set of validation tests that allow assessing the (un)correctness of the schema. These tests are formulated in such a way that a generic reasoning method can be used to check them. To show the feasibility of our approach, we use an implementation of an existing reasoning method.

Keywords

Conceptual modeling automatic reasoning operation contracts 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adrion, W.R., Branstad, M.A., Cherniavsky, J.C.: Validation, Verification and Testing of Computer Software. ACM Comput. Surv. 14(2), 159–192 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brucker, A.D., Wolff, B.: The HOL-OCL Book. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), 525 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: Verifying UML/OCL Operation Contracts. In: Leuschel, M., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) IFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5423, pp. 40–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Costal, D., Teniente, E., Urpí, T., Farré, C.: Handling Conceptual Model Validation by Planning. In: Constantopoulos, P., Vassiliou, Y., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) CAiSE 1996. LNCS, vol. 1080, pp. 255–271. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Díaz, O., Paton, N.W., Iturrioz, J.: Formalizing and Validating Behavioral Models through the Event Calculus. Information Systems 23(3/4), 179–196 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dupuy, S., Ledru, Y., Chabre-Peccoud, M.: An Overview of RoZ: A Tool for Integrating UML and Z Specifications. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L.D. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, pp. 417–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Evans, N., Treharne, H., Laleau, R., Frappier, M.: Applying CSP || B to Information Systems. Software and System Modeling 7, 85–102 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farré, C., Teniente, E., Urpí, T.: Checking Query Containment with the CQC Method. Data and Knowledge Engineering 53(2), 163–223 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gogolla, M., Büttner, F., Richters, M.: USE: A UML-based Specification Environment for Validating UML and OCL. Science of Computer Programming 69(1-3), 27–34 (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hartmann, S.: Coping with Inconsistent Constraint Specifications. In: Kunii, H.S., Jajodia, S., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) ER 2001. LNCS, vol. 2224, pp. 241–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Larman, C.: Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall PTR, Englewood Cliffs (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lenzerini, M., Nobili, P.: On the Satisfiability of Dependency Constraints in Entity-Relationship Schemata. In: Proc. 13th International Conference on Very Large Databases - VLDB 1987, pp. 147–154 (1987)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leuschel, M., Butler, M.: ProB: An Automated Analysis Toolset for the B Method. Software Tools for Technology Transfer (2008) DOI: s10009-007-0063-9Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    MIT. The Alloy Analyzer. MIT Software Design Group, http://alloy.mit.edu
  15. 15.
    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, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: Reasoning on UML Class Diagrams with OCL Constraints. In: Embley, D.W., Olivé, A., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2006. LNCS, vol. 4215, pp. 497–512. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: Specifying the Semantics of Operation Contracts in Conceptual Modeling. In: Spaccapietra, S. (ed.) Journal on Data Semantics VII. LNCS, vol. 4244, pp. 33–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: Decidable Reasoning in UML Schemas with Constraints. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 281–295. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Snook, C., Butler, M.: UML-B: Formal Modeling and Design Aided by UML ACM Trans. on Soft. Engineering and Methodology 15(1), 92–122 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Utting, M., Legeard, B.: Practical Model-Based Testing. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: The Object Constraint Language: Getting Your Models Ready for MDA, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Queralt
    • 1
  • Ernest Teniente
    • 1
  1. 1.Universitat Politècnica de CatalunyaSpain

Personalised recommendations