MODELS 2009: Models in Software Engineering pp 158-171 | Cite as

From UML to Alloy and Back Again

  • Seyyed M. A. Shah
  • Kyriakos Anastasakis
  • Behzad Bordbar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6002)

Abstract

Model transformations can be used to bridge the gap between design and analysis technical spaces by creating tools that allow a model produced by a designer to be transformed to a model suitable for conducting automated analysis. Such model transformations aim at allowing the designer to benefit from the capabilities provided by analysis tools and languages. If the designer who is not a formal method expert is to benefit from such tools, the outcome of the analysis should also be transformed to the language used in the design domain.

This paper presents a study involving UML2Alloy, a tool for transforming UML models in form of UML Class Diagrams which are augmented with OCL constraints, to Alloy. The conversion allows analysis of UML models via Alloy, to identify consistencies in those UML models. We present a method of automatically creating a model transformation based on the original UML2Alloy transformation. The new transformation converts Alloy instances into the UML equivalent Object Diagram. The current technique is presented with the help of an example, along with a prototype implementation using the QVT standard.

Keywords

Model Transformation Alloy Model Meta Model Model Drive Architecture Meta Object Facility 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.-R.: The B-book: assigning programs to meanings. Cambridge University Press, New York (1996)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akehurst, D., Bordbar, B., Evans, M.J., Howells, W.G.J., McDonald-Maier, K.D.: SiTra: Simple transformations in Java. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 351–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2006), http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/models/models2006.html#AkehurstBEHM06 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anastasakis, K.: A Model Driven Approach for the Automated Analysis of UML Class Diagrams. PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham UK (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Georg, G., Ray, I.: On Challenges of Model Transformation from UML to Alloy. In: Software and Systems Modeling, Special Issue on MoDELS 2007 (2009) (Accepted for publication subject to minor revisions)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bordbar, B., Anastasakis, K.: UML2Alloy: A tool for lightweight modelling of Discrete Event Systems. In: Guimarães, N., Isaías, P. (eds.) IADIS International Conference in Applied Computing 2005, Algarve, Portugal, February 2005, vol. 1, pp. 209–216. IADIS Press (2005) ISBN 972-99353-6-XGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dennis, G., Seater, R., Rayside, D., Jackson, D.: Automating commutativity analysis at the design level. In: ISSTA 2004: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Software testing and analysis, pp. 165–174. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Evans, A., France, R., Grant, E.: Towards Formal Reasoning with UML Models. In: Proceedings of the OOPSLA 1999 Workshop on Behavioral Semantics (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Georg, G., Ray, I., Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Toahchoodee, M., Houmb, S.H.: An Aspect-Oriented Methodology for Developing Secure Applications. Information and Software Technology, Special Issue on Model Based Development for Secure Information Systems (Accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. The MIT Press, London (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jackson, D., Sullivan, K.: COM revisited:tool-assisted modelling of an architectural framework. In: 8th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), San Diego, CA (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khurshid, S., Jackson, D.: Exploring the design of an intentional naming scheme with an automatic constraint analyzer. In: ASE 2000: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international conference on Automated software engineering, Washington, DC, USA, p. 13. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim, S.-K.: A Metamodel-based Approach to Integrate Object-Oriented Graphical and Formal Specification Techniques. PhD thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kurtev, I., Bézivin, J., Aksit, M.: Technological Spaces: an Initial Appraisal. In: CoopIS, DOA (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    OMG. enterprise distributed object computing (edoc), http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/edoc.htm
  15. 15.
    OMG. Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Core Specification. OMG (2004), www.omg.org
  16. 16.
    OMG. MOF QVT Final Adopted Specification. Object Modeling Group (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rose, L.M., Paige, R.F., Kolovos, D.S., Polack, F.: The epsilon generation language. In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5095, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shlyakhter, I., Seater, R., Jackson, D., Sridharan, M., Taghdiri, M.: Debugging overconstrained declarative models using unsatisfiable cores. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Montreal, Canada, pp. 94–105. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Snook, C., Butler, M.: Uml-b: Formal modelling and design aided by UML. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 15(1), 92–122 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stahl, T., Voelter, M., Czarnecki, K.: Model-Driven Software Development: Technology, Engineering, Management. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stevens, P.: Bidirectional model transformations in QVT: Semantic issues and open questions. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    France Telecom. Smartqvt: An open source model transformation tool implementing the mof 2.0 qvt-operational language, http://smartqvt.elibel.tm.fr/
  23. 23.
    OMG UML. 2.0 superstructure final adopted specification. OMG Document reference ptc/03-08, 2 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Varró, D.: Model transformation by example. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 410–424. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Varró, D., Pataricza, A.: Generic and meta-transformations for model transformation engineering. In: Baar, T., Strohmeier, A., Moreira, A., Mellor, S.J. (eds.) UML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3273, pp. 290–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Varró, D., Pataricza, A.: VPM: A visual, precise and multilevel metamodeling framework for describing mathematical domains and UML. Software and Systems Modeling 2(3), 187–210 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wimmer, M., Strommer, M., Kargl, H., Kramler, G.: Towards model transformation generation by-example. In: HICSS 2007: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Washington, DC, USA, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Woodcock, J., Davies, J.: Using Z: Specification, Refinement, and Proof. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1996)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seyyed M. A. Shah
    • 1
  • Kyriakos Anastasakis
    • 1
  • Behzad Bordbar
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceThe University of BirminghamEdgbastonUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations