Advertisement

Formalising the UML in Structured Temporal Theories

  • Kevin Lano
  • Juan Bicarregui
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 523)

Abstract

In this chapter we describe a possible semantics for a large part of the Unified Modelling Notation (UML), using structured theories in a simple temporal logic. This semantic representation is suitable for modular reasoning about UML models. We show how it can be used to clarify certain ambiguous cases of UML semantics, and how to justify enhancement or refinement transformations on UML models.

Keywords

Semantic Representation Sequence Diagram Interaction Diagram Guard Condition Collaboration Diagram 
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. [AW96]
    C Atkinson and M Weisskopf. An approach to process description using FUSION. In Object-oriented Development at Work: The FUSION Method in the Real World. Prentice Hall, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. [BLM97]
    J C Bicarregui, K C Lano, and T S E Maibaum. Objects, associations and subsystems: a hierarchical approach to encapsulation. In ECOOP 97, LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. [CABDGHJ94]
    D Coleman, P Arnold, S Bodoff, C Dollin, H Gilchrist, F Hayes, and P Jeremaes. Object-oriented Development: The FUSION Method. Prentice Hall Object-oriented Series, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. [CD94]S Cook and J Daniels. Designing Object Systems: Object-Oriented Modelling with Syntropy. Prentice Hall, September 1994.Google Scholar
  5. [R97]Rational Software et al. UML documentation set version 1.1, http://www.rational.com/uml, 1997.
  6. [EFLR98]
    A Evans, R France, K Lano, and B Rumpe. The UML as a formal modelling notation, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. [GR98]
    M Gogolla and M Richters. Equivalence rules for UML class diagrams. In UML 98, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. [L97]K Lano. Transformations on syntropy and UML models, 1997. Technical Report, “Formal Underpinnings for Object Technology“ project, Dept. of Computing, Imperial College.Google Scholar
  9. [L98]K Lano. Logical specification of reactive and real-time systems. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(5):679–711, 1998.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [LB98]K Lano and J Bicarregui. UML refinement and abstraction transformations. In ROOM 2 Workshop. Bradford University, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. [LE99]K Lano and A Evans. Verification of uml models, 1999. Technical Report, “Formal Underpinnings for Object Technology” project, Dept. of Computing, Imperial College.Google Scholar
  12. [S92]
    M Spivey. The Z Notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. [WJS93]R Wieringa, W de Jonge, and P Spruit. Roles and dynamic subclasses: A model logic approach. Technical report, IS-CORE report, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin Lano
    • 1
  • Juan Bicarregui
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of ComputingImperial CollegeUK
  2. 2.Dept. of ComputingImperial CollegeUK

Personalised recommendations