Languages for Constructing DEVS Models

  • Bernard P. ZeiglerEmail author
  • Hessam S. Sarjoughian
Part of the Simulation Foundations, Methods and Applications book series (SFMA)


This chapter first provides a higher-level perspective on the approach that MS4 Me takes to computational support for constructing DEVS models for virtual build and test. After describing this approach, we expand our view to examine whether Unified Modeling Language (UML) can provide a more expressive framework for DEVS specification. For completeness, we also look at how UML can serve as a target for implementation of DEVS models.


  1. Ferayorni, A., & Sarjoughian, H. S. (2007). Domain driven modeling for simulation of software architectures. In Summer Computer Simulation Conference, San Diego, CA, USA (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
  2. Hong, S.-Y., & Kim, T. G. (2004). Embedding UML subset into object-oriented DEVS modeling process. In Summer Computer Simulation Conference, San Jose, CA, USA (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  3. Huang, D., & Sarjoughian, H. S. (2004). Software and simulation modeling for real-time software-intensive systems. In IEEE International Symposium on Distributed Simulation and Real-Time Applications, Washington DC, USA (pp. 196–203).Google Scholar
  4. Hwang, M. (2011). XSY: DEVS simulation and verification tool.
  5. Mellor, S. J., & Balcer, M. J. (2002). Executable UML—A foundation for model-driven architecture. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  6. Mittal, S. (2007). DEVS unified process for integrated development and testing of service oriented architectures. Ph.D. thesis, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  7. Mittal, S., & Douglass, S. (2011). From domain specific languages to DEVS components: Application to cognitive M&S. In Proceedings of the 2011 Symposium on Theory of Modeling & Simulation: DEVS Integrative M&S Symposium (pp. 256–265). Society for Computer Simulation International.Google Scholar
  8. Mooney, J., & Sarjoughian, H. S. (2009). A framework for executable UML models. In SpringSim Multi-conference, San Diego, CA, USA (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
  9. OMG. (2005). UML 2.0 superstructure specification.
  10. Risco-Martin, J. L., Mittal, S., Zeigler, B. P., & de la Cruz, J. (2009). eUDEVS: Executable UML with DEVS theory of modeling and simulation. Simulation: Transaction of the Society for Modeling and Simulation, 85(11–12), 750–777.Google Scholar
  11. Sarjoughian, H. S., & Markid, A. M. (2012). EMF-DEVS modeling, symposium on theory of modeling and simulation—DEVS integrative M&S symposium. In SpringSim Multi-conference, April, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  12. Schulz, S., Ewing, T. C., & Rozenblit, J. W. (2000). Discrete event system specification (DEVS) and StateMate StateCharts equivalence for embedded systems modeling. In IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems, Edinburgh (pp. 308–316).Google Scholar
  13. Shaikh, R., & Vangheluwe, H. (2011). Transforming UML2.0 class diagrams and statecharts to atomic DEVS. In Symposium on Theory of Modeling & Simulation, Boston, MA, USA (pp. 205–212).Google Scholar
  14. Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Paternostro, M., & Merks, E. (2008). EMF eclipse modeling framework. Reading: Addison-Wesely.Google Scholar
  15. Zinoviev, D. (2005). Mapping DEVS models onto UML models. In DEVS Integrative M&S Symposium, San Diego, CA, USA (pp. 750–777).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of Computer Science and Computer Systems EngineeringArizona State University, School of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems EngineeringTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations