A Formal Semantics for Complete UML State Machines with Communications

  • Shuang Liu
  • Yang Liu
  • Étienne André
  • Christine Choppy
  • Jun Sun
  • Bimlesh Wadhwa
  • Jin Song Dong
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7940)

Abstract

UML is a widely used notation, and formalizing its semantics is an important issue. Here, we concentrate on formalizing UML state machines, used to express the dynamic behaviour of software systems. We propose a formal operational semantics covering all features of the latest version (2.4.1) of UML state machines specification. We use labelled transition systems as the semantic model, so as to use automatic verification techniques like model checking. Furthermore, our proposed semantics includes synchronous and asynchronous communications between state machines. We implement our approach in USM2C, a model checker supporting editing, simulation and automatic verification of UML state machines. Experiments show the effectiveness of our approach.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    OMG unified language superstructure specification (formal), Version 2.4.1 (August 06, 2011), http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/Superstructure/PDF/.
  2. 2.
    USM 2 C, a UML state machines model checker (April 05, 2013), http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~lius87
  3. 3.
    André, É., Choppy, C., Klai, K.: Formalizing non-concurrent UML state machines using colored Petri nets. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 37(4), 1–8 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beato, M.E., Barrio-Solórzano, M., Cuesta, C.E., Fuente, P.: UML automatic verification tool with formal methods. Elec. N. in Th. Computer Sc. 127(4), 3–16 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Börger, E., Cavarra, A., Riccobene, E.: On formalizing UML state machines using ASMs. Information Software Technology 46(5), 287 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choppy, C., Klai, K., Zidani, H.: Formal verification of UML state diagrams: a Petri net based approach. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 36(1), 1–8 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fecher, H., Schönborn, J.: UML 2.0 state machines: Complete formal semantics via core state machine. Formal Methods: Applications and Technology, 244–260 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fecher, H., Schönborn, J., Kyas, M., de Roever, W.: 29 new unclarities in the semantics of UML 2.0 state machines. Formal Methods and Software Engineering, 52–65 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gnesi, S., Latella, D., Massink, M.: Model checking UML statechart diagrams using JACK. In: HASE 1999, pp. 46–55 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harel, D., Gery, E.: Executable object modeling with statecharts. IEEE Computer 30, 31–42 (1997)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jin, Y., Esser, R., Janneck, J.: A method for describing the syntax and semantics of UML statecharts. Software and Systems Modeling 3(2), 150–163 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jürjens, J.: A UML statecharts semantics with message-passing. In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1009–1013. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knapp, A., Merz, S.: Model checking and code generation for UML state machines and collaborations. In: Proc. 5th W. Tools System Design & Verif, vol. 11, pp. 59–64 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knapp, A., Merz, S., Rauh, C.: Model checking - timed UML state machines and collaborations. In: Damm, W., Olderog, E.-R. (eds.) FTRTFT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2469, pp. 395–416. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kong, J., Zhang, K., Dong, J., Xu, D.: Specifying behavioral semantics of UML diagrams through graph transformations. Journal of Systems and Software 82(2), 292–306 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lilius, J., Paltor, I.P.: vUML: A tool for verifying UML models, pp. 255–258 (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu, S., Liu, Y., André, É., Choppy, C., Sun, J., Wadhwa, B., Dong, J.S.: A formal semantics for complete UML state machines with communications (report). Technical report, National University of Singapore (2013), http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~lius87/uml/techreport/uml_sm_semantics.pdf
  18. 18.
    Ng, M., Butler, M.: Towards formalizing UML state diagrams in CSP. In: SEFM 2003, p. 138 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schönborn, J.: Formal semantics of UML 2.0 behavioral state machines. Technical report, Inst. Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, Christian-Albrechts-Univ. of Kiel (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shen, W., Compton, K., Huggins, J.: A toolset for supporting UML static and dynamic model checking. In: COMPSAC 2002, pp. 147–152 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Snook, C., Butler, M.: UML-B: Formal modeling and design aided by UML. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 15(1), 92–122 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Von Der Beeck, M.: A structured operational semantics for UML-statecharts. Software and Systems Modeling 1(2), 130–141 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang, S., Liu, Y.: An automatic approach to model checking UML state machines. In: 4th Int. Conf. Secure Software Integration & Reliability etc (SSIRI-C), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shuang Liu
    • 1
  • Yang Liu
    • 2
  • Étienne André
    • 3
  • Christine Choppy
    • 3
  • Jun Sun
    • 4
  • Bimlesh Wadhwa
    • 1
  • Jin Song Dong
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ComputingNational University of SingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Nanyang Technology UniversitySingapore
  3. 3.Université Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, LIPNVilletaneuseFrance
  4. 4.Singapore University of Design and TechnologySingapore

Personalised recommendations