Cross-Diagram UML Design Verification

  • Iryna Zaretska
  • Oleksandra Kulankhina
  • Hlib Mykhailenko
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 347)


The chapter presents a general method and software implementation for checking inconsistencies in UML design of a software project. The proposed method uses its own model and first order predicate logic to specify relations between components of the design. Unlike various existing methods the proposed one is focused mostly on cross-diagram inconsistencies and strong adhering to object-oriented principles. The model used in the method is based on the unified graph representation of UML diagrams.


Software design object-oriented approach UML design model verification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Andrews, A., France, R.B., Ghosh, S., Craig, G.: Test Adequacy Criteria for UML Design Models. Journal of Software Testing, Verification and Reliability 13(2), 95–127 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fischer, G., et al.: The Role of Critiquing in Cooperative Problem Solving. ACM Transactions of Information Systems 9(3), 123–151 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Briand, L., Labiche, Y.: A UML-based approach to system testing. Software and System Modeling 1(1), 10–42 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Souza, C.R.B., et al.: Using Critiquing Systems for Inconsistency Detection in Software Engineering Models. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2003), San Francisco Bay, pp. 196–203 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Souza, C.R.B., et al.: A Group Critic System for Object-Oriented Analysis and Design. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2000), pp. 313–316 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghosh, S., France, R.B., Braganza, C., Kawane, N., Andrews, A., Pilskalns, O.: Test Adequacy Assessment for UML Design Model Testing. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, pp. 332–343. Denver, Co. (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    del Mar Gallardo, M., Merino, P., Pimentelis, E.: Debugging UML Designs with Model Checking. Journal of Object Technology 1(2), 101–117 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gogolla, M., Bohling, J., Richters, M.: Validation of UML and OCL Models by Automatic Snapshot Generation. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 265–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kawane, N.: Fault Detection Effectiveness of UML Design, Model Test Adequacy Criteria. In: Supplementary Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, pp. 327–328. Denver, Co. (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kawane, N.: EPTUD: An Eclipse plug-in for testing UML design models. Master’s of science thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mellor, S., Balcer, M.: Executable UML: A Foundation for Model Driven Architecture. Addison Wesley Professional (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dinh-Trong, T., Kawane, N., Ghosh, S., France, R.B., Andrews, A.A.: A Tool-Supported Approach to Testing UML Design Models. In: Proceedings of 10th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS 2005), Shanghai, China (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Object Management Group: UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification (2005),
  14. 14.
    Pender. T.: UML Bible. Wiley Published Inc. (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iryna Zaretska
    • 1
  • Oleksandra Kulankhina
    • 1
  • Hlib Mykhailenko
    • 1
  1. 1.V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National UniversityKharkivUkraine

Personalised recommendations