Verification of the Correctness in Composed UML Behavioural Diagrams
The Unified Modeling Language UML 2.0 plays a central role in modern software engineering, and it is considered as the de facto standard for modeling software architectures and designs. Today?s systems are becoming more and more complex, and very difficult to deal with. The main difficulty arises from the different ways in modelling each component and the way they interact with each others. At this level of software modeling, providing methods and tools that allow early detection of errors is mandatory. In this paper, a verification methodology of a composition of UML behavioural diagrams (State Machine, Activity Diagram, and Sequence Diagram) is proposed. Our main contribution is the systematic construction of a semantic model based on a novel composition operator. This operator provides an elegant way to define the combination of different kind of UML diagrams. In addition, this operator posses a nice property which allows to handle the verification of large system efficiently. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, a case study is presented.
KeywordsTransition System Unified Modelling Language (UML) Model Checking Security Properties
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Alawneh, L., Debbabi, M., Jarraya, Y., Soeanu, A., Hassayne, F.: A unified approach for verification and validation of systems and software engineering models. In: ECBS 2006: Proceedings of the 13th Annual IEEE Interntl. Symp. and Works. on Eng. of Comp. Based Sys., pp. 409–418. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Cheng, B.H.C., Konrad, S., Campbell, L.A., Wassermann, R.: Using security patterns to model and analyze security. In: IEEE Workshop on Requirements for High Assurance Systems, pp. 13–22 (2003)Google Scholar
- 6.Dong, W., Wang, J., Qi, Z., Rong, N.: Compositional verification of uml dynamic models. In: APSEC 2007: Proceedings of the 14th Asia-Pacific Soft. Eng. Conf., pp. 286–293. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington (2007)Google Scholar
- 7.Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: ICSE 1999: Proc. of the 21st Internatnl Conf. on SE, pp. 411–420. ACM Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
- 8.Rik, E., Roel, W.: Tool support for verifying uml activity diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30 (2004)Google Scholar
- 10.Giunchiglia, C.C., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Giunchiglia, F., Roveri, M.: Nusmv: a new symbolic model verifier, pp. 495–499. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
- 11.Leue, S., Ladkin, P.B.: Implementing and verifying msc specifications using promela/xspin. In: Proceedings of the DIMACS Workshop SPIN 1996, pp. 65–89 (1997)Google Scholar
- 12.Siveroni, I., Zisman, A., Spanoudakis, G.: Property specification and static verification of uml models. In: ARES 2008: Proceedings of the 2008 Third Interntl Conf. on Avail., Reliab. and Sec., pp. 96–103. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington (2008)Google Scholar
- 13.Van Amstel, M.F., Lange, C.F.J., Chaudron, M.R.V.: Four automated approaches to analyze the quality of uml sequence diagrams. In: COMPSAC 2007: Proceedings of the 31st Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference, pp. 415–424. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington (2007)Google Scholar
- 14.Zisman, A.: A static verification framework for secure peer-to-peer applications. In: ICIW 2007: Proceed. of the 2nd Internatnl Conf. on Internet and Web Applic. and Serv., IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2007)Google Scholar