Abstract
MDD and MDA approaches require capturing the behavior of UML models in sufficient detail so that the models can be automatically implemented/executed in the production environment. With this purpose, Action Semantics (AS) were added to the UML specification as the fundamental unit of behavior specification. Actions are the basis for defining the fine-grained behavior of operations, activity diagrams, interaction diagrams and state machines. Unfortunately, current proposals devoted to the verification of behavioral schemas tend to skip the analysis of the actions they may include. The main goal of this paper is to cover this gap by presenting several techniques aimed at verifying AS specifications. Our techniques are based on the static analysis of the dependencies between the different actions included in the behavioral schema. For incorrect specifications, our method returns a meaningful feedback that helps repairing the inconsistency.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baker, P., Bristow, P., Jervis, C., King, D., Thomson, R., Mitchell, B., Burton, S.: Detecting and Resolving Semantic Pathologies in UML Sequence Diagrams. ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE, 50–59 (2005)
Bollobas, B.: Modern graph theory. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: UMLtoCSP: a tool for the formal verification of UML/OCL models using constraint programming. ASE, 547–548 (2007)
Cabot, J., Gómez, C.: Deriving Operation Contracts from UML Class Diagrams. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 196–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Gallardo, M.M., Merino, P., Pimentel, E.: Debugging UML Designs with Model Checking. Journal of Object Technology 1(2), 101–117 (2002)
Egyed, A.: Instant Consistency Checking for the UML. In: ICSE, pp. 381–390 (2006)
Emerson, E.A.: Temporal and Modal Logic. Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science 8, 995–1072 (1990)
Eshuis, R.: Symbolic Model Checking of UML Activity Diagrams. ACM Transactions on Soft. Eng. and Methodology 15(1), 1–38 (2006)
Garousi, V., Briand, L., Labiche, Y.: Control Flow Analysis of UML 2.0 Sequence Diagrams. In: Hartman, A., Kreische, D. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3748, pp. 160–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Graw, G., Herrmann, P.: Transformation and Verification of Executable UML Models. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 101, 3–24 (2004)
Grosu, R., Smolka, S.A.: Safety-Liveness Semantics for UML 2.0 Sequence Diagrams. In: ACSD, pp. 6–14 (2005)
Holzmann, G.J.: The spin model checker: Primer and reference manual. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2004)
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)
Latella, D., Majzik, I., Massink, M.: Automatic Verification of a Behavioural Subset of UML Statechart Diagrams using the SPIN Model-Checker. Formal Aspects of Computing 11(6), 637–664 (1999)
Lilius, J., Paltor, I.P.: Formalising UML State Machines for Model Checking. In: France, R.B., Rumpe, B. (eds.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 430–445. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Marriott, K., Stuckey, P.J.: Programming with Constraints: An Introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)
Mellor Stephen, J., Balcer Marc, J.: Executable UML: A foundation for model-driven architecture. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)
Ober, I., Graf, S., Ober, I.: Validating Timed UML Models by Simulation and Verification. Int. Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 8(2), 128–145 (2006)
Object Management Group (OMG): UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification. OMG Adopted Specification (ptc/07-11-02) (2007)
Object Management Group (OMG): Semantics of a Foundational Subset for Executable UML Models RFP (ad/2005-04-02) (2005)
Olivé, A.: Conceptual Schema-Centric Development: A Grand Challenge for Information Systems Research. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Planas, E., Cabot, J., Gómez, C.: Verifying Action Semantics Specifications in UML Behavioral Models (Extended Version). LSI-09-6-R LSI Research Report, UPC (2008)
Rasch, H., Wehrheim, H.: Checking Consistency in UML Diagrams: Classes and State Machines. In: Najm, E., Nestmann, U., Stevens, P. (eds.) FMOODS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2884, pp. 229–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Turner, E., Treharne, H., Schneider, S., Evans, N.: Automatic Generation of CSP || B Skeletons from xUML Models. In: Fitzgerald, J.S., Haxthausen, A.E., Yenigun, H. (eds.) ICTAC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5160, pp. 364–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Van Der Straeten, R., Mens, T., Simmonds, J., Jonckers, V.: Using Description Logic to Maintain Consistency between UML Models. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 326–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Xie, F., Levin, V., Browne, J.C.: Model Checking for an Executable Subset of UML. ASE, 333–336 (2001)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Planas, E., Cabot, J., Gómez, C. (2009). Verifying Action Semantics Specifications in UML Behavioral Models. In: van Eck, P., Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R. (eds) Advanced Information Systems Engineering. CAiSE 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5565. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02144-2_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02144-2_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-02143-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-02144-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)