Skip to main content

UML Vs. Classical Vs. Rhapsody Statecharts: Not All Models Are Created Equal

  • Conference paper

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNPSE,volume 3713)

Abstract

State machines, represented by statecharts or statechart diagrams, are an important formalism for behavioural modelling. According to the research literature, the most popular statechart formalisms appear to be Classical, UML, and that implemented by Rhapsody. These three formalisms seem to be very similar; however, there are several key syntactic and semantic differences. These differences are enough that a model written in one formalism could be ill-formed in another formalism. Worse, a model from one formalism might actually be well-formed in another, but be interpreted differently due to the semantic differences. This paper summarizes the results of a comparative study of these three formalisms with the help of several illustrative examples. Then, we present a classification of the differences together with a comprehensive overview.

Keywords

  • State Machine
  • Semantic Concept
  • Static Choice
  • Object Management Group
  • Outgoing Transition

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/11557432_8
  • Chapter length: 16 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-540-32057-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berry, G., Gonthier, G.: The ESTEREL synchronous programming language: design, semantics, implementation. Science of Comp. Prog. 19, 87–152 (1992)

    MATH  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Douglass, B.P.: Real Time UML, 3rd edn. Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gogolla, M., Parisi-Presicce, F.: State diagrams in UML: A formal semantics using graph transformations. In: Proc. Workshop on Precise Semantics for Modelling Techniques, Technische Universität München, TUM-I9803, pp. 55–72 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Harel, D.: Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming 8(3), 231–274 (1987)

    MATH  CrossRef  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Harel, D.: Some thoughts on statecharts, 13 years later. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 226–231. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Harel, D., Gery, E.: Executable object modeling with statecharts. Computer 30(7), 31–42 (1997)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Harel, D., Kugler, H.: The RHAPSODY semantics of statecharts (on, on the executable core of the UML) (preliminary version). In: Ehrig, H., Damm, W., Desel, J., Große-Rhode, M., Reif, W., Schnieder, E., Westkämper, E. (eds.) INT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3147, pp. 325–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Harel, D., Naamad, A.: The STATEMATE semantics of statecharts. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 5(4), 293–333 (1996)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Harel, D., Pnueli, A., Schmidt, J.P., Sherman, R.: On the formal semantics of statecharts. In: Proc. of the 2nd IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 54–64. Computer Society Press of the IEEE, Los Alamitos (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Harel, D., Politi, M.: Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: the STATEMATE Approach. McGraw-Hill, New York (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  12. I-Logix. Rhapsody 6.0 User Guide

    Google Scholar 

  13. I-Logix. Tutorial for Rhapsody in J, Release 4.1 MR2 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lüttgen, G., von der Beeck, M., Cleaveland, R.: A compositional approach to statecharts semantics. In: Proc.8th ACM SIGSOFT Int’ll Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 120–129. ACM Press, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mikk, E.: Semantics and Verification of Statecharts. PhD thesis, Christian- Albrechts University of Kiel, 2000. Bericht Nr (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  16. OMG. OMG Unified Modeling Language specification. Adopted Formal Specification formal/03-03-01, Object Management Group, 2003. Version 1.5 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  17. OMG. UML 2.0 infrastructure specification. Technical Report ptc/03-09-15, Object Management Group (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  18. OMG. UML 2.0 superstructure specification. Technical Report ptc/04-10-02, Object Management Group (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pnueli, A., Shalev, M.: What is in a step: On the semantics of statecharts. In: Ito, T., Meyer, A.R. (eds.) TACS 1991. LNCS, vol. 526, pp. 244–264. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Selic, B.: The pragmatics of model-driven development. IEEE Software 20(5), 19–25 (2003)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. Selic, B.: Personal Communication (March 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  22. von der Beeck, M.: A comparison of statecharts variants. In: Langmaack, H., de Roever, W.-P., Vytopil, J. (eds.) FTRTFT 1994 and ProCoS 1994. LNCS, vol. 863, pp. 128–148. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  23. von der Beeck, M.: A structured operational semantics for UML-statecharts. Software and Systems Modeling 1(2), 130–141 (2002)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Crane, M.L., Dingel, J. (2005). UML Vs. Classical Vs. Rhapsody Statecharts: Not All Models Are Created Equal. In: Briand, L., Williams, C. (eds) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. MODELS 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3713. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11557432_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11557432_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-29010-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-32057-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)