A Fully General Operational Semantics for UML 2.0 Sequence Diagrams with Potential and Mandatory Choice
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.
KeywordsOperational Semantic Sequence Diagram Silent Event Denotational Semantic Execution System
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.0, OMG Document: formal/2005-07-04 (2005)Google Scholar
- 2.International Telecommunication Union: Message Sequence Chart (MSC), ITU-T Recommendation Z.120 (1999)Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 8.Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Come, let’s play: Scenario-based programming using LSCs and the Play-Engine. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
- 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
- 13.Cengarle, M.V., Knapp, A.: Operational semantics of UML 2.0 interactions. Technical report TUM-I0505, Technische Universität München (2005)Google Scholar
- 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.International Telecommunication Union: Message Sequence Chart (MSC), ITU-T Recommendation Z.120, Annex B: Formal semantics of Message Sequence Charts (1998)Google Scholar
- 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.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