Advertisement

Defining Precise Semantics for UML

  • Jean-Michel Bruel
  • Johan Lilius
  • Ana Moreira
  • Robert B. France
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1964)

Abstract

The purpose of the workshop was to bring together researchers and practitioners from academia and industry to report on their experiences with developing precise semantics for the UML. This oneday workshop was the 4th of a successful series on strengthening the UML semantic foundation. Presentations and discussions have focused on identifying the challenges, recognizing limitations, and analyzing proposed semantics for the UML. The workshop was organized by the precise UML group (pUML1).

Keywords

Class Diagram Precise Semantic Reference Semantic Collaboration Diagram Behavioral Diagram 
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.

Bibliography

  1. 1.
    Using profiles to re-architect the UML (Tony Clark, A. Evans, S. Kent)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Projection Diagram-The Unified Approach at a glance (A. Bhagwat)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Towards a Semantics for Behavioural Model Elements (R. J. Back, et al)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Building the Bridge between syntax and semantics of UML collaborations(M. Cibran, et al)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dependency relations between UML models (C. Pons, et al)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Towards model checking OCL (D. Distefano, et al)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mechanical analysis of UML statemachines and class diagrams (F. Kammüller, S. Helke)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    On types, instances, and classes in UML (G. Genilloud, A. Wegmann)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Defining precise semantics for UML (G. Fuster)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Towards an UML-based object-oriented modeling tool for an internet integrated formalization process (E. Grant, et al)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Using BOOM framework for formal specification of the UML (G. Övergaard)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Changing UML metamodel in order to represent concern separation (J. L. Herrero, et al)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Difficulties in defining Precise Semantics for UML (I. Ober)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Metamodels for Static Conceptual Modelling of Information Systems (R. Laleau, F. Polack)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    An attempt to introduce OCL (M. Anlauf)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    An Algebraic semantics for UML Supporting its multiview approach (G. Reggio, et al)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Semantics of relationships (J.-P. Rethore)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Category theoretic approaches of representing precise UML semantics (J. Smith, et al).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Formalization of the UML metamodel: an approach based upon the fourlayer metamodelling architecture (M. N. Terrasse)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    On the relationship between UML sequence diagrams and state diagrams (J. Whittle)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Michel Bruel
    • 1
  • Johan Lilius
    • 2
  • Ana Moreira
    • 3
  • Robert B. France
    • 4
  1. 1.Université de Pau et des Pays de l’AdourFrance
  2. 2.Abo AkademiFinland
  3. 3.Universidade Nova de LisboaPortugal
  4. 4.Colorado State UniversityU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations