Advertisement

From Interaction Overview Diagrams to Temporal Logic

  • Luciano Baresi
  • Angelo Morzenti
  • Alfredo Motta
  • Matteo Rossi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6627)

Abstract

In this paper, we use UML Interaction Overview Diagrams as the basis for a user-friendly, intuitive, modeling notation that is well-suited for the design of complex, heterogeneous, embedded systems developed by domain experts with little background on modeling software-based systems. To allow designers to precisely analyze models written with this notation, we provide (part of) it with a formal semantics based on temporal logic, upon which a fully automated, tool supported, verification technique is built. The modeling and verification technique is presented and discussed through the aid of an example system.

Keywords

Metric temporal logic bounded model checking Unified Modeling Language 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bagnato, A., Sadovykh, A., Paige, R.F., Kolovos, D.S., Baresi, L., Morzenti, A., Rossi, M.: MADES: Embedded systems engineering approach in the avionics domain. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Hands-on Platforms and Tools for Model-Based Engineering of Embedded Systems, HoPES (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bersani, M.M., Frigeri, A., Pradella, M., Rossi, M., Morzenti, A., San Pietro, P.: Bounded reachability for temporal logic over constraint systems. In: Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME), pp. 43–50 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blohm, G., Bagnato, A.: D1.1 requirements specification. Technical report, MADES Consortium, Draft (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bouabana-Tebibel, T.: Semantics of the interaction overview diagram. In: Proc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Information Reuse Integration (IRI), pp. 278–283 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cengarle, M.V., Graubmann, P., Wagner, S.: Semantics of UML 2.0 interactions with variabilities. Elec. Notes in Theor. Comp. Sci. 160, 141–155 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cengarle, M.V., Knapp, A.: Operational semantics of UML 2.0 interactions. Technical Report TUM-I0505, Technische Universität Mnchen (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ciapessoni, E., Coen-Porisini, A., Crivelli, E., Mandrioli, D., Mirandola, P., Morzenti, A.: From formal models to formally-based methods: an industrial experience. ACM TOSEM 8(1), 79–113 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eshuis, R.: Symbolic model checking of UML activity diagrams. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 15(1), 1–38 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eshuis, R., Wieringa, R.: Tool support for verifying UML activity diagrams. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 30(7), 437–447 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harel, D., Kugler, H.: Synthesizing state-based object systems from LSC specifications. In: Yu, S., Păun, A. (eds.) CIAA 2000. LNCS, vol. 2088, pp. 1–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kloul, L., Küster-Filipe, J.: From intraction overview diagrams to PEPA nets. In: Proc. of the Work. on Process Algebra and Stochastically Timed Activities (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knapp, A., Wuttke, J.: Model checking of UML 2.0 interactions. In: Models in Software Engineering. LNCS, vol. 4634, pp. 42–51 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lam, V.S.W.: On π-calculus semantics as a formal basis for uml activity diagrams. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Object Management Group. UML Profile for Modeling and Analysis of Real-Time Embedded Systems. Technical report, OMG (2009) formal/2009-11-02Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Object Management Group. OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure. Technical report, OMG (2010) formal/2010-05-05.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pradella, M., Morzenti, A., San Pietro, P.: The symmetry of the past and of the future: bi-infinite time in the verification of temporal properties. In: Proceedings of ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE, pp. 312–320 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Staines, T.S.: Intuitive mapping of UML 2 activity diagrams into fundamental modeling concept petri net diagrams and colored petri nets. In: Proc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, pp. 191–200 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Störrle, H., Hausmann, J.H.: Towards a formal semantics of UML 2.0 activities. In: Software Engineering. Lect. Notes in Inf., vol. 64, pp. 117–128 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Uchitel, S., Kramer, J.: A workbench for synthesising behaviour models from scenarios. In: Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, pp. 188–197 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luciano Baresi
    • 1
  • Angelo Morzenti
    • 1
  • Alfredo Motta
    • 1
  • Matteo Rossi
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione, Deep-SE GroupPolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations