Advertisement

A Formal Methodology for Semantics and Time Consistency Checking of UML Dynamic Diagrams

  • Youcef Hammal
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 59)

Abstract

The consistency checking of designed UML artifacts for real-time systems is a difficult task because of the imprecise dynamic semantics of UML diagrams and the expressiveness gap between them. In this setting, this paper proposes a formal methodology for semantical and time consistency checking between the behavioral models of StateCharts and scenario-based specifications.

Keywords

Consistency Check Sequence Diagram State Diagram Object Management Group Time Annotation 
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. 1.
    Alur, R., Dill, D.L.: A theory of timed automata. Theoretical Computer Science 126, 183–235 (1994)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Engels, G., Hausmann, J.H., Heckel, R., Sauer, S.: Testing the consistency of dynamic UML diagrams. In: Proc. of Integrated Design and Process Technology (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hammal, Y.: A formal Semantics of UML State Charts by means of Timed Petri nets. In: Wang, F. (ed.) FORTE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3731, pp. 38–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Kotb, Y., Katayama, T.: Consistency checking of UML model diagrams using the XML semantics approach. In: Proc. of Intl. World Wide Web Conference, Japan, pp. 982–983 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lam, V.S.W., Padget, J.: Consistency checking of sequence diagrams and statechart diagrams using the π-Calculus. In: Romijn, J.M.T., Smith, G.P., van de Pol, J. (eds.) IFM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3771, pp. 347–365. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Litvak, B., Tyszberowicz, S., Yehudai, A.: Behavioral Consistency Validation of UML Diagrams. In: Proc. of the 1st Intl. Conference SEFM 2003, p. 118 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Object Management Group, Inc. (OMG): Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure version 2.0, Final Adopted Specification (2004) http://www.omg.org
  9. 9.
    Object Management Group, Inc. (OMG): UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, and Time Specifi-cation (September 2003), Version 1.0, http://www.omg.org
  10. 10.
    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)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Youcef Hammal
    • 1
  1. 1.LSI Laboratory, Department of Computer ScienceUSTHB UniversityAlgiersAlgeria

Personalised recommendations