Forward and Backward Analysis of Weak Sequencing Specification

  • Thouraya Bouabana-TebibelEmail author
  • Stuart H. Rubin
  • Miloud Bennama
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 346)


In this paper, we propose a new approach to formally analyze UML CombinedFragments. The latter are mapped into Colored Petri Nets, or CPN. The derived specification is value-oriented, composed of identified objects and events, thus allowing for a more precise analysis of the model behavior. To verify that the CPN model preserves the system properties, we use OCL invariants. This use induces the need for specifying the association ends on the behavioral models. The analysis results are in the form of CPNTools reports. They, consequently, are not necessarily comprehensible to UML designers. Automatic analysis of the CPNTools results is, therefore, provided. It is followed by an interpretation of these results and their feedback to the user, expressed in UML language.


UML interactions association ends OCL analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baeten, J.C.M., Basten, T.: Partial-Order Process Algebra (and its Relation to Petri Nets). In: Bergstra, J.A., Ponse, A., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) Handbook of Process Algebra, pp. 769–872. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baresi, L., Pezzè, M.: Formal interpreters for diagram notations. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 14, 42–84 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baresi, L., Pezzé, M.: On Formalizing UML with High-Level Petri Nets. In: Agha, G., De Cindio, F., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) APN 2001. LNCS, vol. 2001, pp. 276–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bouabana-Tebibel, T., Rubin, H.S.: An interleaving semantics for UML2 interactions using Petri nets. Information Sciences: An International Journal 232, 276–293 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bouabana-Tebibel, T., Belmesk, M.: An Object-Oriented approach to formally analyze the UML 2.0 activity partitions. Information and Software Technology 49(9-10), 999–1016 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bouabana-Tebibel, T.: Object dynamics formalization using object flows within UML state machines. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures - An International Journal 2(1), 26–39 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bouabana-Tebibel, T., Rubin, H.S.: A value-oriented specification for weak sequencing validation. In: The 15th IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration – IEEE IRI 2014, San Francisco (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cavarra, A., Küster-Filipe, J.: Formalizing liveness-enriched Sequence Diagrams using ASMs. In: Zimmermann, W., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ASM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3052, pp. 62–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cengarle, M.V., Knapp, A.: UML 2.0 interactions: Semantics and refinement, In: Proc. 3 rd Int. Wsh. Critical Systems Development with UML (CSDUML’04, Technical Report TUM-I0415, pp. 85-99. Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheng, A., Christensen, S., Mortensen, K.H.: Model Checking Coloured Petri Nets Exploiting Strongly Connected Components. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems, WODES 1996, pp. 169–177. Institution of Electrical Engineers, Computing and Control Division (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eichner, C., Fleischhack, H., Meyer, R., Schrimpf, U., Stehno, C.: Compositional semantics for UML 2.0 sequence diagrams using petri nets. In: Prinz, A., Reed, R., Reed, J. (eds.) SDL 2005. LNCS, vol. 3530, pp. 133–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fernandes, J.M., Tjell, S., Jørgensen, J.B., Ribeiro, O.: Designing tool support for translating use cases and UML 2.0 Sequence Diagrams into a coloured Petri Net. In: Sixth International Workshop on Scenarios and State Machines, SCESM 2007: ICSE Workshops 2007, p. 2. IEEE, Minneapolis (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hammal, Y.: Branching time semantics for UML 2.0 Sequence Diagrams. In: Najm, E., Pradat-Peyre, J.-F., Donzeau-Gouge, V.V. (eds.) FORTE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4229, pp. 259–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jensen, K.: An Introduction to the Practical Use of Coloured Petri Nets, Lectures on Petri Nets. In: Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) APN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1492, pp. 237–292. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knapp, A., Wuttke, J.: Model Checking of UML 2.0 Interactions. In: Kühne, T. (ed.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4364, pp. 42–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Küster-Filipe, J.: Modelling concurrent interactions. In: Rattray, C., Maharaj, S., Shankland, C. (eds.) AMAST 2004. LNCS, vol. 3116, pp. 304–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Micskei, Z., Waeselynck, H.: The many meanings of UML 2 Sequence Diagrams: A survey, Journal of Software and Systems Modeling, vol. Journal of Software and Systems Modeling 10(4), 489–514 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Milner, R., Tofte, M., Harper, R., MacQueen, D.: The Definition of Standard ML, revised edition, vol. 1(2), pp. 2–3. MIT Press (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group UML 2.4.1 Superstructure Specification (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Object Management Group UML 2.0 OCL Specification (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group The UML Action Semantics (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vinter Ratzer, A., Wells, L., Lassen, H.M., Laursen, M., Qvortrup, J.F., Stissing, M.S., Westergaard, M., Christensen, S., Jensen, K.: CPN Tools for Editing, Simulating, and Analysing Coloured Petri Nets. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Best, E. (eds.) ICATPN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2679, pp. 450–462. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Runde, R.: STAIRS - understanding and developing specifications expressed as UML interaction diagrams. PhD thesis, University of Oslo (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Störrle, H.: Trace semantics of interactions in UML 2.0, Technical Report TR 0403, University of Munichk (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Störrle, H.: A Petri-Net Semantics for Sequence Diagrams. In: Spies, K., Schätz, B. (eds.) Formale Beschreibungstechniken für verteilte Systeme, GI/ITG-Fachgespräch, München, Germany, vol. 9 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thouraya Bouabana-Tebibel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stuart H. Rubin
    • 2
  • Miloud Bennama
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Communication dans les Systèmes Informatiques - LCSIEcole Nationale Supérieure d’InformatiqueAlgiersAlgeria
  2. 2.SPAWAR Systems Center PacificSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations