Lightweight Verification of Executable Models

  • Elena Planas
  • Jordi Cabot
  • Cristina Gómez
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6998)


Executable models play a key role in many development methods by facilitating the immediate simulation/implementation of the software system under development. This is possible because executable models include a fine-grained specification of the system behaviour.

Unfortunately, a quick and easy way to check the correctness of behavioural specifications is still missing, which compromises their quality (and in turn the quality of the system generated from them). In this paper, a lightweight verification method to assess the strong executability of fine-grained behavioural specifications (i.e. operations) at design-time is provided. This method suffices to check that the execution of the operations is consistent with the integrity constraints defined in the structural model and returns a meaningful feedback that helps correcting them otherwise.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abdelhalim, I., Sharp, J., Schneider, S., Treharne, H.: Formal verification of tokeneer behaviours modelled in fUML using CSP. In: Dong, J.S., Zhu, H. (eds.) ICFEM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6447, pp. 371–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur, R.: Model Checking: From Tools to Theory. In: 25 Years of Model Checking, pp. 89–106 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baker, P., Bristow, P., Jervis, C., King, D.J., Thomson, R., Mitchell, B., Burton, S.: Detecting and Resolving Semantic Pathologies in UML Sequence Diagrams. In: ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE, pp. 50–59 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: Verifying UML/OCL Operation Contracts. In: Leuschel, M., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) IFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5423, pp. 40–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cabot, J., Teniente, E.: Determining the Structural Events That May Violate an Integrity Constraint. In: Baar, T., Strohmeier, A., Moreira, A., Mellor, S.J. (eds.) UML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3273, pp. 320–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eshuis, R.: Symbolic Model Checking of UML Activity Diagrams. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 15(1), 1–38 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farré, C., Teniente, E., Urpí, T.: Checking query containment with the CQC method. Data Knowledge Engineering 53(2), 163–223 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graw, G., Herrmann, P.: Transformation and Verification of Executable UML Models. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 101, 3–24 (2004)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grosu, R., Smolka, S.A.: Safety-Liveness Semantics for UML 2.0 Sequence Diagrams. In: ACSD, pp. 6–14. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hanus, M.: Programming with Constraints: An Introduction by Kim Marriott and Peter J. Stuckey. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998); J. Funct. Program, 11(2):253–262, 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Latella, D., Majzik, I., Massink, M.: Automatic Verification of a Behavioural Subset of UML Statechart Diagrams Using the SPIN Model-checker. Formal Asp. Comput. 11(6), 637–664 (1999)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lilius, J., Paltor, I.: vUML: A Tool for Verifying UML Models. In: ASE, pp. 255–258 (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG. UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification (ptc/07-11-02) (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    OMG. Concrete Syntax for UML Action Language (Action Language for Foundational UML), version Beta 1, (2010),
  15. 15.
    OMG. Semantics Of A Foundational Subset For Executable UML Models (fUML), version 1.0 (2011),
  16. 16.
    Planas, E., Cabot, J., Gómez, C.: Verifying Action Semantics Specifications in UML Behavioral Models. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 125–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Planas, E., Cabot, J., Gómez, C.: Lightweight Verification of Executable Models (Extended Version) (2011),
  18. 18.
    Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: Reasoning on UML conceptual schemas with operations. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) CAiSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5565, pp. 47–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Planas
    • 1
  • Jordi Cabot
    • 2
  • Cristina Gómez
    • 3
  1. 1.Universitat Oberta de CatalunyaSpain
  2. 2.École des Mines de Nantes - INRIAFrance
  3. 3.Universitat Politècnica de CatalunyaSpain

Personalised recommendations