Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Institutionalising UML 2.0 state machines

  • SI : FM & UML
  • Published:
Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A key challenge to achieve a unified semantics for UML is how to handle the heterogeneity of its sublanguages. In this context, the theory of institutions provides an elegant and robust framework for programming in the large and in particular for compositionality. It can be used to define a family of formalisms which capture various UML sublanguages, and morphisms that represent the expected semantic relationships between them, resulting in a heterogeneous environment for the semantic definition of UML. The main goal of this work is to collaborate with the definition of such environment. For this purpose, we define an institution for UML 2.0 state machines. The building blocks of our institution are based on a previous semantics dealing with processing simple input events within a transition step. We also extend these semantic definitions for handling sequences of events, and then for considering runs through the state machine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. von der Beeck M (2002) A structured operational semantics for UML-statecharts. Softw Syst Model 1: 130–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Calegari D, Szasz N (2011) An institution for UML 2.0 state machines. Tech. Rep. 11-02, InCo-PEDECIBA. http://www.fing.edu.uy/inco/pedeciba/bibpm/ReportesT%e9cnicos

  3. Cengarle MV (1998) The rewriting logic institution. Tech. Rep. Technical Report 9801, Institut für Informatik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität

  4. Cengarle MV, Knapp A (2008) An institution for UML 2.0 interactions. Tech. Rep. TUM-I0808, Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München

  5. Cengarle MV, Knapp A (2008) An institution for UML 2.0 static structures. Tech. Rep. TUM-I0807, Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München

  6. Cengarle MV, Knapp A, Tarlecki A, Wirsing M (2008) A heterogeneous approach to UML semantics. In: Concurrency, graphs and models. LNCS, vol 5065. Springer, Berlin, pp 383–402

  7. Cîrstea C (2006) An institution of modal logics for coalgebras. J Log Algebr Program 67(1–2): 87–113

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Crane ML, Dingel J (2005) On the semantics of UML state machines: categorization and comparison. Tech. Rep. 2005-501. School of Computing, Queen’s University

  9. Czarnecki K, Helsen S (2006) Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst J 45(3): 621–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Diaconescu R, Futatsugi K (2002) Logical foundations of CafeOBJ. Theor Comput Sci 285: 289–318

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Fecher H, Schönborn J (2007) UML 2.0 state machines: complete formal semantics via core state machines. In: Proceedings of FMICS and PDMC 2006. LNCS, pp 244–260

  12. Goguen JA, Burstall RM (1983) Introducing institutions. In: Logic of Programs. LNCS, vol 164. Springer, Berlin, pp 221–256

  13. Goguen JA, Burstall RM (1992) Institutions: abstract model theory for specification and programming. J ACM 39(1): 95–146

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Goguen JA, Rosu G (2002) Institution morphisms. Formal Asp Comput 13(3–5): 274–307

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Jin Y, Esser R, Janneck JW (2004) A method for describing the syntax and semantics of UML statecharts. Softw Syst Model 3: 150–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lane SM (1998) Categories for the working mathematician 2nd edn Graduate texts in mathematics. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lano K (ed) (2009) UML 2 semantics and applications. Wiley Inc., New York

  18. Mossakowski T (2005) Heterogeneous specification and the heterogeneous tool set. Tech. Rep. Habilitation thesis, Universität Bremen

  19. OMG (2005) Unified modeling language superstructure. formal/2005-07-04 v2.0, Object Management Group

  20. Sannella D, Tarlecki A (2011) Foundations of algebraic specification and formal software development, 1st. edn Monographs. in Theo Comp Sci. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  21. Zhan X, Miao H (2004) An approach to formalizing the semantics of UML statecharts. In: Conceptual modeling ER 2004. LNCS, vol 3288. Springer, Berlin, pp 753–765

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de la República, 11300, Montevideo, Uruguay

    Daniel Calegari

  2. Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad ORT Uruguay, 11100, Montevideo, Uruguay

    Nora Szasz

Authors
  1. Daniel Calegari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nora Szasz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Calegari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Calegari, D., Szasz, N. Institutionalising UML 2.0 state machines. Innovations Syst Softw Eng 7, 315–323 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-011-0161-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-011-0161-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation