Deterministic UML Models for Interconnected Activities and State Machines
The interconnection between UML activities and state machines enables the comprehensible modeling of systems based on data flows and events. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to guarantee a deterministic behavior for models in which activity and state diagrams work together. At first, deterministic models are ensured independently within both diagrams by using our UML profile for Deterministic Models for signal processing embedded systems (DMOSES). The relationship between executions of the model elements is analyzed according to interconnections of the activity and state diagrams described in the UML standard. To avoid nondeterministic models, we define the execution behavior of cooperating activities and state machines. The interconnection of both diagrams and their corresponding behavior are illustrated in an embedded system example that uses parallel processing for data as well as for events. Our approach simplifies the development of deterministic embedded systems by code generation from UML models.
KeywordsActivity state machine deterministic behavior
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Object Management Group: UML Unified Modeling Language, Superstructure, V2.1.2Google Scholar
- 2.Gherbi, A., Khendek, F.: From UML/SPT models to schedulability analysis: a metamodel-based transformation. In: Proceedings of the Ninth IEEE International Symposium on Object and Component-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing, pp. 343–350. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Apvrille, L., Courtiat, J.-P., Lohr, C., Saqui-Sannes, P.: TURTLE: A Real-time UML Profile Supported by a Formal Validation toolkit. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering,, 473–487 (2004)Google Scholar
- 5.Apvrille, L., Saqui-Sannes, P., Khendek, F.: TURTLE-P: A UML Profile for the Formal Validation of Critical and Distributed Systems. In: Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM), pp. 449–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
- 6.Object Management Group: UML Profile for MARTE (2007)Google Scholar
- 7.Störrle, H., Hausmann, J.-H.: Towards a Formal Semantics of UML 2.0 Activities. In: Proceedings German Software Engineering Conference. LNI, vol. P-64, pp. 117–128 (2005)Google Scholar
- 8.Schattkowsky, T., Forster, A.: On the Pitfalls of UML 2 Activity Modeling. In: Proc. International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering MISE 2007: ICSE Workshop 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
- 9.Object Management Group: Semantics of Foundational Subset for Executable UML Models. ptc/2008-11-03Google Scholar
- 11.Nam, H.-L., Tai, H.-K., Sung, D.-C.: Construction of Global Finite State Machine for Testing Task Interactions written in Message Sequence Charts. In: The Fourteenth International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2002), pp. 369–376 (2002)Google Scholar
- 12.Schäfer, T., Knapp, A., Merz, S.: Model Checking UML State Machines and Collaborations. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 357–369. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
- 13.Wiktor, B.-D.: Real Time Model Checking Using Timed Concurrent State Machines. International Journal of Computer Science & Applications, 1–12 (2007)Google Scholar
- 14.Gang, L., von Bochmann, G., Petrenko, A.: Test selection based on communicating nondeterministic finite-state machines using a generalized Wp-method. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 149–162 (1994)Google Scholar