Initiating a Benchmark for UML and OCL Analysis Tools

  • Martin Gogolla
  • Fabian Büttner
  • Jordi Cabot
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7942)

Abstract

The Object Constraint Language (OCL) is becoming more and more popular for model-based engineering, in particular for the development of models and model transformations. OCL is supported by a variety of analysis tools having different scopes, aims and technological corner stones. The spectrum ranges from treating issues concerning formal proof techniques to testing approaches, from validation to verification, and from logic programming and rewriting to SAT-based technologies. This paper is a first step towards a well-founded benchmark for assessing validation and verification techniques on UML and OCL models. The paper puts forward a set of UML and OCL models together with particular questions for these models roughly characterized by the notions consistency, independence, consequences, and reachability. The paper sketches how these questions are handled by two OCL tools, USE and EMFtoCSP. The claim of the paper is not to present a complete benchmark right now. The paper is intended to initiate the development of further UML and OCL models and accompanying questions within the UML and OCL community. The OCL community is invited to check the presented UML and OCL models with their approaches and tools and to contribute further models and questions which emphasize the possibilities offered by their own tools.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bernhard, K.: Aichernig and Percy Antonio Pari Salas. Test Case Generation by OCL Mutation and Constraint Solving. In: QSIC, pp. 64–71. IEEE Computer Society (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Georg, G., Ray, I.: On Challenges of Model Transformation from UML to Alloy. Software and System Modeling 9(1), 69–86 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beckert, B., Giese, M., Hähnle, R., Klebanov, V., Rümmer, P., Schlager, S., Schmitt, P.H.: The KeY system 1.0 (Deduction Component). In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) CADE 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4603, pp. 379–384. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boronat, A., Meseguer, J.: Algebraic Semantics of OCL-Constrained Metamodel Specifications. In: Oriol, M., Meyer, B. (eds.) TOOLS EUROPE 2009. LNBIP, vol. 33, pp. 96–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brucker, A.D., Wolff, B.: HOL-OCL: A Formal Proof Environment for UML/OCL. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Inverardi, P. (eds.) FASE 2008. LNCS, vol. 4961, pp. 97–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Büttner, F., Cabot, J.: Lightweight String Reasoning for OCL. In: Vallecillo, A., Tolvanen, J.-P., Kindler, E., Störrle, H., Kolovos, D. (eds.) ECMFA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7349, pp. 244–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: UMLtoCSP: A Tool for the Formal Verification of UML/OCL Models using Constraint Programming. In: Stirewalt, R.E.K., Egyed, A., Fischer, B. (eds.) ASE, pp. 547–548. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cadoli, M., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Mancini, T.: Finite Model Reasoning on UML Class Diagrams Via Constraint Programming. In: Basili, R., Pazienza, M.T. (eds.) AI*IA 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4733, pp. 36–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Orsi, G., Pieris, A.: Querying UML Class Diagrams. In: Birkedal, L. (ed.) FOSSACS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7213, pp. 1–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cabrera Castillos, K., Dadeau, F., Julliand, J., Taha, S.: Measuring Test Properties Coverage for Evaluating UML/OCL Model-Based Tests. In: Wolff, B., Zaïdi, F. (eds.) ICTSS 2011. LNCS, vol. 7019, pp. 32–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chimiak-Opoka, J.D., Demuth, B.: A Feature Model for an IDE4OCL. ECEASST 36 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clavel, M., Egea, M.: ITP/OCL: A Rewriting-Based Validation Tool for UML+OCL Static Class Diagrams. In: Johnson, M., Vene, V. (eds.) AMAST 2006. LNCS, vol. 4019, pp. 368–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clavel, M., Egea, M., de Dios, M.A.G.: Checking Unsatisfiability for OCL Constraints. Electronic Communications of the EASST 24, 1–13 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gogolla, M., Büttner, F., Cabot, J.: Initiating a Benchmark for UML and OCL Analysis Tools: Additional Material. Technical report, University of Bremen (2013), http://www.db.informatik.uni-bremen.de/publications/intern/GBC2013addon.pdf
  15. 15.
    Gogolla, M., Büttner, F., Richters, M.: USE: A UML-Based Specification Environment for Validating UML and OCL. Science of Computer Programming 69, 27–34 (2007)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gonzalez, C.A., Büttner, F., Clariso, R., Cabot, J.: EMFtoCSP: A Tool for the Lightweight Verification of EMF Models. In: Gnesi, S., Gruner, S., Plat, N., Rumpe, B. (eds.) Proc. ICSE 2012 Workshop Formal Methods in Software Engineering: Rigorous and Agile Approaches, FormSERA (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hußmann, H., Demuth, B., Finger, F.: Modular Architecture for a Toolset Supporting OCL. Sci. Comput. Program. 44(1), 51–69 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kyas, M., Fecher, H., de Boer, F.S., Jacob, J., Hooman, J., van der Zwaag, M., Arons, T., Kugler, H.: Formalizing UML Models and OCL Constraints in PVS. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 115, 39–47 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maraee, A., Balaban, M.: Efficient Reasoning About Finite Satisfiability of UML Class Diagrams with Constrained Generalization Sets. In: Akehurst, D.H., Vogel, R., Paige, R.F. (eds.) ECMDA-FA. LNCS, vol. 4530, pp. 17–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Queralt, A., Artale, A., Calvanese, D., Teniente, E.: OCL-Lite: Finite Reasoning on UML/OCL Conceptual Schemas. Data Knowl. Eng. 73, 1–22 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roldán, M., Durán, F.: Dynamic Validation of OCL Constraints with mOdCL. ECEASST 44 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schleipen, M.: A Concept for Conformance Testing of AutomationML Models by Means of Formal Proof using OCL. In: ETFA, pp. 1–5. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wille, R., Soeken, M., Drechsler, R.: Debugging of Inconsistent UML/OCL Models. In: Rosenstiel, W., Thiele, L. (eds.) DATE, pp. 1078–1083. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Willink, E.D.: Re-Engineering Eclipse MDT/OCL for Xtext. ECEASST 36 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yatake, K., Aoki, T.: SMT-Based Enumeration of Object Graphs from UML Class Diagrams. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 37(4), 1–8 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Gogolla
    • 1
  • Fabian Büttner
    • 2
  • Jordi Cabot
    • 2
  1. 1.University of BremenGermany
  2. 2.École des Mines de Nantes - INRIA, LINAAtlanModFrance

Personalised recommendations