Behavior Consistent Inheritance in UML

  • Markus Stumptner
  • Michael Schrefl
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1920)


Object-oriented design methods express the behavior an object exhibits over time, i.e., the object life cycle, by notations based on Petri nets or state charts. The paper considers the specialization of life cycles via inheritance relationships as a combination of extension and refinement, viewed in the context of UML state machines. Extension corresponds to the addition of states and actions, re- finement refers to the decomposition of states into substates. We use the notions of observation consistency and invocation consistency to compare the behavior of object life cycles and present a set of rules to check for behavior consistency of UML state machines, based on a one-to-one mapping of a meaningful subset of state machines to Object/Behavior Diagrams.


Object Class Composite State Video Text Guard Condition Consistent Extension 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. Bichler and M. Schrefl. Active Object-Oriented Database Design Using Active Object/Behavior Diagrams. In J. Widom and S. Chakravarthy, editors, Proc. IEEE RIDE’94, pages 163–171, Houston, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grady Booch. Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications (2nd edition). Benjamin Cummings, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Ebert and G. Engels. Observable or Invocable Behaviour-You Have to Choose. Technical report, UniversitÄt Koblenz, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D.W. Embley, B.D. Kurtz, and S.N. Woodfield. Object-Oriented Systems Analysis: A Model-Driven Approach. Prentice Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    David Harel. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming, 8, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Kappel and M. Schrefl. Object/behavior diagrams. In Proceedings ICDE’91, pages 530–539, Kobe, Japan, April 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Liskov and J. M. Wing. A behavioral notion of subtyping. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(6):1811–1841, November 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.D. McGregor and D.M. Dyer. A note on inheritance and state machines. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 18(4), 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    O. Nierstrasz. Regular types for active objects. In Proc. OOPSLA, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Paech and P. Rumpe. A new concept of refinement used for behaviour modelling with automata. In Proc. FME’94, Springer LNCS 873, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mike Papazoglou, Stefano Spaccapietra, and Zahir Tari, editors. Advances in Object-Oriented Data Modelling. MIT Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    L. Pomello, G. Rozenberg, and C. Simone. A Survey of Equivalence Notions for Net Based Systems. LNCS 609. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rational Software Corp. UML Notation Guide, Version 1.1, September 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rational Software Corp. UML Semantics, Version 1.1, September 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Rumbaugh, M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, and F. Eddy. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Saake, P. Hartel, R. Jungclaus, R. Wieringa, and R. Feenstra. Inheritance conditions for object life cycle diagrams. In Proc. EMISA Workshop, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Schrefl. Behavior modeling by stepwise refining behavior diagrams. In H. Kangassalo, editor, Proc. ER’90, amsterdam, 1991. Elsevier North Holland.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Schrefl and M. Stumptner. Behavior Consistent Extension of Object Life Cycles. In Proc. OOER’95, volume 1021 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Schrefl and M. Stumptner. Behavior consistent refinement of object life cycles. In Proc. ER’97. Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Schrefl and M. Stumptner. On the Design of Behavior Consistent Specializations of Object Life Cycles in OBD and UML. In Papazoglou et al. [11], 2000.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    W. M. P. van der Aalst and T. Basten. Life-Cycle Inheritance-A Petri-Net-Based Approach. In Proc. 18th Intl. Conf. on Application and Theory of Petri Nets, LNCS. Springer, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Stumptner
    • 1
  • Michael Schrefl
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für InformationssystemeTechnische UniversitÄtWien
  2. 2.School of Computer and Information ScienceUniversity of South AustraliaAustralia

Personalised recommendations