Evolution of the UML Interactions Metamodel

  • Marc-Florian Wendland
  • Martin Schneider
  • Øystein Haugen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8107)

Abstract

UML Interactions represent one of the three different behavior kinds of the UML. In general, they specify the exchange of messages among parts of a system. Although UML Interactions can reside on different level of abstractions, they seem to be sufficiently elaborated for a higher-level of abstraction where they are used for sketching the communication among parts. Its metamodel reveals some fuzziness and imprecision where definitions should be accurate and concise, though.

In this paper, we propose improvements to the UML Interactions’ metamodel for Message arguments and Loop CombinedFragments that make them more versatile. We will justify the needs for the improvements by precisely showing the shortcomings of the related parts of the metamodel. We demonstrate the expressiveness of the improvements by applying them to examples that current Interactions definition handles awkwardly.

Keywords

UML Interactions Sequence Diagram Messages CombinedFragments 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    OMG UML: OMGT Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure, Version 2.4.1, #formal/2011-08-06 (2011), http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/
  2. 2.
    Grabowski, J., Rudolph, E.: Message Sequence Chart (MSC) - A Survey of the new CCITT Language for the Description of Traces within Communication Systems. CCITT SDL Newsletter (16), 30–48 (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OMG UTP: OMG UML Testing Profile (UTP), Version 1.2, #ptc/2012-09-13 (2012), http://www.omg.org/spec/UTP
  4. 4.
    Baker, P., Dai, Z.R., Grabowski, J., Haugen, Ø., Schieferdecker, I., Williams, C.: Model-driven testing – using the UML testing profile. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haugen, Ø.: Comparing UML 2.0 interactions and MSC-2000. In: Amyot, D., Williams, A.W. (eds.) SAM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3319, pp. 65–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haugen, Ø., Stølen, K.: STAIRS – steps to analyze interactions with refinement semantics. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 388–402. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haugen, Ø., Husa, K.E., Runde, R.K., Stølen, K.: Why timed sequence diagrams require three-event semantics. In: Leue, S., Systä, T.J. (eds.) Scenarios. LNCS, vol. 3466, pp. 1–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haugen, Ø., Husa, K.E., Runde, R.K., Stølen, K.: STAIRS towards formal design with sequence diagrams. Journal of Software and Systems Modeling, 349–458 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Runde, R.K., Haugen, Ø., Stølen, K.: Refining UML interactions with underspecification and nondeterminism. Nordic Journal of Computing 12(2), 157–188 (2005)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lund, M.S., Stølen, K.: A fully general operational semantics for UML 2.0 sequence diagrams with potential and mandatory choice. In: Misra, J., Nipkow, T., Sekerinski, E. (eds.) FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4085, pp. 380–395. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Störrle, H.: Semantics of interactions in UML 2.0. In: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Störrle, H.: Trace Semantics of UML 2.0 Interactions. Technical report, University of Munich (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knapp, A.: A Formal Semantics for UML Interactions. In: France, R.B. (ed.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 116–130. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cengarle, M., Knapp, A.: UML 2.0 Interactions: Semantics and Refinement. In: Jürjens, J., Fernàndez, E.B., France, R., Rumpe, B. (eds.) 3rd Int. Workshop on Critical Systems Development with UML (CSDUML 2004), pp. 85–99 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li, M., Ruan, Y.: Approach to Formalizing UML Sequence Diagrams. In: Proc. 3rd International Workshop on Intelligent Systems and Applications (ISA), pp. 28–29 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shen, H., Virani, A., Niu, J.: Formalize UML 2 Sequence Diagrams. In: Proc. 11th IEEE High Assurance Systems Engineering Symposium (HASE), pp. 437–440 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Störrle, H.: Assert, Negate and Refinement in UML-22 Interactions. In: Jürjens, J., Rumpe, B., France, R., Fernandez, E.B. (eds.) Proc. Wsh. Critical Systems Development with UML (CSDUML 2003), San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harel, D., Maoz, S.: Assert and negate revisited: modal semantics for UML sequence diagrams. In: Proc. International Workshop on Scenarios and State Machines: Models, Algorithms, and Tools (SCESM 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Knapp, A., Wuttke, J.: Model Checking of UML 2.0 Interactions. In: Kühne, T. (ed.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4364, pp. 42–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wendland, M.-F., Hoffmann, A., Schieferdecker, I.: Fokus!MBT – A Multi-Paradigmatic Test Modeling Environment. To appear in Proceedings of: Academics Tooling with Eclipse Workshop (ACME), In Conjunction with the Joint Conferences ECMFA/ECSA/ECOOP, Montpellier, France (2013) ISBN 978-1-4503-2036-8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc-Florian Wendland
    • 1
  • Martin Schneider
    • 1
  • Øystein Haugen
    • 2
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institut FOKUSBerlinGermany
  2. 2.SINTEFNorway

Personalised recommendations