Polymorphic Scenario-Based Specification Models: Semantics and Applications

  • Shahar Maoz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5795)


We present polymorphic scenarios, a generalization of a UML2-compliant variant of Damm and Harel’s live sequence charts (LSC) in the context of object-orientation. Polymorphic scenarios are visualized using (modal) sequence diagrams where lifelines may represent classes and interfaces rather than concrete objects. Their semantics takes advantage of inheritance and interface realization to allow the specification of most expressive, succinct, and reusable universal and existential inter-object scenarios for object-oriented system models. We motivate the use of polymorphic scenarios, formally define their trace-based semantics, and present their application for scenario-based testing and execution, as implemented in the S2A compiler developed in our group.


Sequence Diagram Concrete Object Alarm System Message Sequence Chart Interface Realization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Haugen, Ø., Husa, K.E., Runde, R.K., Stølen, K.: STAIRS Towards Formal Design with Sequence Diagrams. Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM) 4(4), 355–367 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krüger, I.: Capturing Overlapping, Triggered, and Preemptive Collaborations Using MSCs. In: Pezzé, M. (ed.) FASE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2621, pp. 387–402. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whittle, J., Kwan, R., Saboo, J.: From Scenarios to Code: An Air Traffic Control Case Study. Software and Systems Modeling 4(1), 71–93 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Damm, W., Harel, D.: LSCs: Breathing Life into Message Sequence Charts. J. on Formal Methods in System Design 19(1), 45–80 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harel, D., Maoz, S.: Assert and Negate Revisited: Modal Semantics for UML Sequence Diagrams. Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM) 7(2), 237–252 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atir, Y., Harel, D., Kleinbort, A., Maoz, S.: Object Composition in Scenario-Based Programming. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Inverardi, P. (eds.) FASE 2008. LNCS, vol. 4961, pp. 301–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harel, D., Kleinbort, A., Maoz, S.: S2A: A Compiler for Multi-Modal UML Sequence Diagrams. In: Dwyer, M.B., Lopes, A. (eds.) FASE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4422, pp. 121–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marelly, R., Harel, D., Kugler, H.: Multiple Instances and Symbolic Variables in Executable Sequence Charts. In: OOPSLA 2002, pp. 83–100 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klose, J., Wittke, H.: An Automata Based Interpretation of Live Sequence Charts. In: Margaria, T., Yi, W. (eds.) TACAS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2031, pp. 512–527. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Westphal, B., Toben, T.: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Well-Formedness of LSCs. In: Baresi, L., Heckel, R. (eds.) FASE 2006. LNCS, vol. 3922, pp. 230–246. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Weak Alternating Automata Are Not That Weak. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 2(3), 408–429 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Maoz, S., Harel, D.: From Multi-Modal Scenarios to Code: Compiling LSCs into AspectJ. In: SIGSOFT FSE 2006, pp. 219–230. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maoz, S.: Model-Based Traces. In: Chaudron, M.R.V. (ed.) Workshops and Symposia at MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5421, pp. 109–119. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Come, Let’s Play: Scenario-Based Programming Using LSCs and the Play-Engine. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harel, D., Kugler, H., Marelly, R., Pnueli, A.: Smart Play-out of Behavioral Requirements. In: Aagaard, M.D., O’Leary, J.W. (eds.) FMCAD 2002. LNCS, vol. 2517, pp. 378–398. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    France, R.B., Kim, D.K., Ghosh, S., Song, E.: A UML-Based Pattern Specification Technique. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 30(3), 193–206 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roychoudhury, A., Goel, A., Sengupta, B.: Symbolic Message Sequence Charts. In: ESEC-FSE 2007, pp. 275–284. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cengarle, M.V.: System Model for UML – The Interactions Case. In: MMOSS. Dagstuhl Seminar Proc., vol. 06351 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knapp, A.: A Formal Semantics for UML Interactions. In: France, R.B., Rumpe, B. (eds.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 116–130. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    Harel, D., Kugler, H.: Synthesizing State-Based Object Systems from LSC Specifications. Int. J. of Foundations of Computer Science 13(1), 5–51 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krüger, I., Grosu, R., Scholz, P., Broy, M.: From MSCs to Statecharts. In: DIPES. IFIP Conf. Proc., vol. 155, pp. 61–72. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shahar Maoz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Applied MathematicsThe Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations