Semantic Variations Among UML StateMachines

  • Ali Taleghani
  • Joanne M. Atlee
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4199)


In this paper, we use template-semantics to express the execution semantics of UML 2.0 StateMachines, resulting in a precise description that not only highlights the semantics decisions that have been documented but also explicates the semantics choices that have been left unspecified. We provide also the template semantics for StateMachines as implemented in three UML CASE tools: Rational Rose RT, Rhapsody, and Bridgepoint. The result succinctly explicates (1) how each of the tools refines the standard’s semantics and (2) which tools’ semantics deviate from the standard.


Composition Operator Event Pool Composite State Object Management Group Semantic Variation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Accelerated Technology. Bridgepoint (2005),
  2. 2.
    Crane, M., Dingel, J.: UML vs. Classical vs. Rhapsody State machines: Not All Models are Created Equal. In: Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on Model Driven Eng. Lang. and Sys (MoDELS/UML 2005), Montego Bay, Jamaica (October 2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fecher, H., Schönborn, J., Kyas, M., de Roever, W.P.: 29 New Unclarities in the Semantics of UML 2.0 State Machines. In: Lau, K.-K., Banach, R. (eds.) ICFEM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3785, pp. 52–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harel, D.: Email disucssion. Email (July 2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harel, D., Kugler, H.: The RHAPSODY Semantics of Statecharts (or, On the Executable Core of the UML). 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harel, D., Pnueli, A., Schmidt, J.P., Sherman, R.: On the Formal Semantics of State machines. In: Logic in Comp. Sci., pp. 54–64. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1987)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hu, Z., Shatz, S.M.: Explicit Modeling of Semantics Associated with Composite States in UML State machines. Intl. Jour. of Auto. Soft. Eng. (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    IBM Rational. Rational Rose RealTime (2002),
  9. 9.
    IBM Rational. Rational Rose RealTime - Modeling Language Guide, Version 2003.06.00 (2002),
  10. 10.
    IBM Rational. Rational Rose RealTime - UML Services Library, Version 2003.06.00 (2002),
  11. 11.
    ilogix, Inc. Rhapsody (2005),
  12. 12.
    Jin, Y., Esser, R., Janneck, J.W.: Describing the Syntax and Semantics of UML State machines in a Heterogeneous Modelling Environment. In: Hegarty, M., Meyer, B., Narayanan, N.H. (eds.) Diagrams 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2317, pp. 320–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jürjens, J.: A UML State Machines Semantics with Message-passing. In: Proc. ACM Symp. on App. Comp. (SAC 2002), pp. 1009–1013 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maggiolo-Schettini, A., Peron, A., Tini, S.: A comparison of statecharts step semantics. Theor. Comput. Sci. 290, 465–498 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCausland, C.: Email disucssion. Email (July 2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mikk, E., Lakhnech, Y., Petersohn, C., Siegel, M.: On Formal Semantics of Statecharts as Supported by STATEMATE. In: 2nd BCS-FACS Northern Formal Methods Workshop, Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Niu, J., Atlee, J.M., Day, N.: Template Semantics for Model-Based Notations. IEEE Trans. on Soft. Eng. 29(10), 866–882 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Niu, J., Atlee, J.M., Day, N.A.: Understanding and Comparing Model-Based Specification Notations. In: Proc. IEEE Intl. Req. Eng. Conf., pp. 188–199 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    OMG. Unified Modelling Language Specification: Version 2.0, Formal/05-07-04 (2003),
  20. 20.
    Pnueli, A., Shalev, M.: What is 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
  21. 21.
    Selic, B.: Email disucssion. Email (July 2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shankar, S., Asa, S., Sipos, V., Xu, X.: Reasoning about Real-Time State machines in the Presence of Semantic Variations. In: ASE, pp. 243–252 (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shlaer, S., Mellor, S.J.: Object Lifecycles: Modeling the World in States. Yourdon Press, Upper Saddle River (1992)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Simons, A.: On the Compositional Properties of UML State machine Diagrams. In: Proc. of Rigorous Object-Oriented Methods (ROOM 2000), York, UK (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    von der Beeck, M.: A Comparison of State machines 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Taleghani
    • 1
  • Joanne M. Atlee
    • 1
  1. 1.David R. Cheriton School of Computer ScienceUniversity of WaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations