Advertisement

A Fully General Operational Semantics for UML 2.0 Sequence Diagrams with Potential and Mandatory Choice

  • Mass Soldal Lund
  • Ketil Stølen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4085)

Abstract

UML sequence diagrams is a specification language that has proved itself to be of great value in system development. When put to applications such as simulation, testing and other kinds of automated analysis there is a need for formal semantics. Such methods of automated analysis are by nature operational, and this motivates formalizing an operational semantics. In this paper we present an operational semantics for UML 2.0 sequence diagrams that we believe gives a solid starting point for developing methods for automated analysis. The operational semantics has been proved to be sound and complete with respect to a denotational semantics for the same language. It handles negative behavior as well as potential and mandatory choice. We are not aware of any other operational semantics for sequence diagrams of this strength.

Keywords

Operational Semantic Sequence Diagram Silent Event Denotational Semantic Execution System 
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.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.0, OMG Document: formal/2005-07-04 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Telecommunication Union: Message Sequence Chart (MSC), ITU-T Recommendation Z.120 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haugen, Ø., Husa, K.E., Runde, R.K., Stølen, K.: STAIRS towards formal design with sequence diagrams. Software and Systems Modeling 4, 355–367 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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: Models, Transformations and Tools. LNCS, vol. 3466, pp. 1–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haugen, Ø., Husa, K.E., Runde, R.K., Stølen, K.: Why timed sequence diagrams require three-event semantics. Research report 309, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo (2004) (revised June 2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lund, M.S., Stølen, K.: A fully general operational semantics for UML sequence diagrams with potential and mandatory choice. Research report 330, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jonsson, B., Padilla, G.: An execution semantics for MSC-2000. In: Reed, R., Reed, J. (eds.) SDL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2078, pp. 365–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Come, let’s play: Scenario-based programming using LSCs and the Play-Engine. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cavarra, A., Küster-Filipe, J.: Formalizing liveness-enriched sequence diagrams using ASMs. In: Zimmermann, W., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ASM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3052, pp. 67–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harel, D., Maoz, S.: Assert and negate revisited: Modal semantics for UML sequence diagrams. In: 5th International Workshop on Scenarios and State Machines: Models, Algorithms, and Tools (SCESM 2006), pp. 13–19. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grosu, R., Smolka, S.A.: Safety-liveness semantics for UML 2.0 sequence diagrams. In: 5th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD 2005), pp. 6–14. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Letichevsky, A., Kapitonova, J., Kotlyarov, V., Volkov, V., Letichevsky, A., Weigert, T.: Semantics of Message Sequence Charts. In: Prinz, A., Reed, R., Reed, J. (eds.) SDL 2005. LNCS, vol. 3530, pp. 117–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cengarle, M.V., Knapp, A.: Operational semantics of UML 2.0 interactions. Technical report TUM-I0505, Technische Universität München (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alur, R., Etessami, K., Yannakakis, M.: Inference of Message Sequence Charts. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 29, 623–633 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alur, R., Etessami, K., Yannakakis, M.: Realizability and verification of MSC graphs. Theoretical Computer Science 331, 97–114 (2005)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mauw, S., Reniers, M.A.: Operational semantics for MSC 1996. Computer Networks 31, 1785–1799 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mauw, S., Reniers, M.A.: High-level Message Sequence Charts. In: 8th International SDL Forum: Time for Testing, SDL, MSC and Trends (SDL 1997), pp. 291–306. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    International Telecommunication Union: Message Sequence Chart (MSC), ITU-T Recommendation Z.120, Annex B: Formal semantics of Message Sequence Charts (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Incremental elaboration of scenario-based specification and behavior models using implied scenarios. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 13, 37–85 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kosiuczenko, P., Wirsing, M.: Towards an integration of Message Sequence Charts and Timed Maude. Journal of Integrated Design & Process Science 5, 23–44 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: Maude Manual (Version 2.2). SRI International, Menlo Park (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lund, M.S., Stølen, K.: Deriving tests from UML 2.0 sequence diagrams with neg and assert. In: 1st International Workshop on Automation of Software Test (AST 2006), pp. 22–28. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mass Soldal Lund
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ketil Stølen
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of OsloNorway
  2. 2.SINTEF Information and Communication TechnologyNorway

Personalised recommendations