This paper presents formal definitions for UML Sequences Diagrams based on branching time semantics and partial orders in a denotational style. The obtained graphs are close to lattices and specify faithfully the intended behaviors rather than trace based semantics. We also define few generalized algebraic operations on graphs so that it makes it easy to provide formal definitions in a compositional manner to interaction operators. Next we extend our formalism with logical clocks and time formulas over values of these clocks to express timing constraints of complex systems. We present also some algorithms to extract time annotations that adorn sequence diagrams and transform them into timing constraints in our timed graphs. Obviously, this approach alleviates more the hard task of consistency checking between UML diagrams, specifically interaction diagrams with regards to state diagrams. Timeliness and performance analysis of timed graphs related to sequence diagrams could take advantages of works on model checking of timed automata.


Sequence Diagram Formal Semantic Event Occurrence Interaction Operator Interaction Diagram 


  1. 1.
    Alur, R., Dill, D.: A theory of timed automata. Theorical Computer Science 126, 183–235 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cardoso, J., Sibertin-Blanc, C.: An operational semantics for UML interaction: sequencing of actions and local control. European Journal of Automatised Systems. APII-JESA 36, 1015-1028 (ISBN 2-7462-0573-4), Hermés-Lavoisier (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grosu, R., Smolka, S.A.: Safety-Liveness Semantics for UML 2.0 sequence diagrams. In: Proc. of ACSD 2005, the 5th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design, Saint-Malo, France (June 2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haugen, Æ., Husa, K.E., Runde, R.K., StÆlen, K.: STAIRES towards formal design with sequence diagrams. Software & System Modeling, online first: 1-13, 2005 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ITU-T. Z.120. Message sequence charts (MSC) (November 1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Latronico, E., Koopman, P.: Representing Embedded System Sequence Diagrams as a Formal Language. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, p. 302. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mitchell, B.: Inherent Causal Orderings of Partial Order Scenarios. In: Liu, Z., Araki, K. (eds.) ICTAC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3407, pp. 113–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    OMG. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure version 2.0, Final Adopted Specification. Object Management Group (2004), Available from: http://www.omg.org
  9. 9.
    Sibertin-Blanc, C., Tahir, O., Cardoso, J.: Interpretation of UML sequence diagrams as causality flows. In: Ramos, F.F., Larios Rosillo, V., Unger, H. (eds.) ISSADS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3563, pp. 126–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Störrle, H.: Trace semantics of interactions in UML 2.0. Technical Report TR 0403, University of Munich, Germany 09/2004 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li, X., Liu, Z., Jifeng, H.: A formal semantics of UML sequence Diagram. In: Proc. of Australian Software Engineering Conference 2004, Australia (April 2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ziadi, T., Hélouët, L., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Revisiting statechart synthesis with an Algebraic Approach. In: Proc. of International conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2004) (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Youcef Hammal
    • 1
  1. 1.LSI, Département d’Informatique, Faculté d’Electronique & InformatiqueUniversité des Sciences et de la Technologie Houari BoumedieneAlgiersAlgeria

Personalised recommendations