Advertisement

Abstract

In UML 2.0 sequence diagrams have been considerably extended and are now fundamentally better structured. Interactions in sequence diagrams can be structured using so-called interaction fragments, including alt (alternative behaviour), par (parallel behaviour), neg (forbidden behaviour), assert (mandatory behaviour) and ref (reference another diagram). The operator ref in particular greatly improves the way diagrams can be decomposed. In previous work we have given a semantics to a subset of sequence diagrams using labelled event structures, a true-concurrent model that naturally captures alternative and parallel behaviour. In this paper, we expand that work to address refinement and show how to obtain a refined model by means of a powerful categorical construction over two categories of labelled event structures. The underlying motivation for this work is reasoning and verification of complex scenario-based inter-object behavioural models. We conclude the paper with a discussion on future work.

Keywords

Event Structure Sequence Diagram Event Occurrence Labelling Function Parallel Behaviour 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    ITU: Recommendation Z.120: Message Sequence Chart (MSC) (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Küster-Filipe, J.: Modelling concurrent interactions. Theoretical Computer Science 351(2) (2006); Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology Special Issue Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reniers, M.: Message Sequence Charts:Syntax and Semantics. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    OMG: UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification. document ptc/04-10-02 (2004), available from www.uml.org
  5. 5.
    Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Come, Let’s Play: Scenario-based Programming Using LSCs and the Play-Engine. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Winskel, G., Nielsen, M.: Models for Concurrency. In: Abramsky, S., Gabbay, D., Maibaum, T. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Computer Science. Semantic Modelling, vol. 4, pp. 1–148. Oxford Science (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vaandrager, F.: A simple definition for parallel composition of prime event structures. Technical Report CS-R8903, Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science, P.O. Box 4079, 1009 AB Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1989)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Küster-Filipe, J.: Foundations of a Module Concept for Distributed Object Systems. PhD thesis, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cengarle, M., Knapp, A.: Operational semantics of UML 2.0 interactions. Technical Report TUM-I0505, Institut für Informatik, TU München (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haugen, Ø., Husa, K., Runde, R., Stølen, K.: STAIRS towards formal design with sequence diagrams. Journal of Software and System Modeling 4(4), 355–357 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Danos, V., Krivine, J.: Reversible communicating systems. In: Gardner, P., Yoshida, N. (eds.) CONCUR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3170, pp. 292–307. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juliana Küster Filipe Bowles
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceThe University of BirminghamEdgbaston, BirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations