A Semantics of Core Computational Model for ODP Specifications

  • Youssef Balouki
  • Mohamed Bouhdadi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 28)


The Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing (RM-ODP) defines a framework within which support of distribution, interoperability and portability can be integrated. However other ODP standards have to be defined. We treat in this paper the need for formal notation for concepts in the computational language. Indeed, the ODP viewpoint languages are abstract in the sense that they define what concepts should be supported not how these concepts should be represented. Using the denotational semantics in the context of UML we define in this paper syntax and semantics for core ODP structural concepts defined in the RM-ODP foundations part and in the computational language namely object action, computational object, and computational interface. These specification concepts are suitable for describing and constraining ODP computational viewpoint specifications.


Unify Modelling Language Class Diagram Abstract Syntax Denotational Semantic Semantic Domain 
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.


  1. 1.
    ISO/IEC (1994) Basic reference model of open distributed processing – Part 1: Overview and guide to use. ISO/IEC CD 10746-1Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO/IEC (1994) RM-ODP-Part 2: Descriptive model. ISO/IEC DIS 10746-2Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO/IEC (1994) RM-ODP-Part 3: Prescriptive model. ISO/IEC DIS 10746-3Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO/IEC (1994) RM-ODP-Part 4: Architectural semantics. ISO/IEC DIS 10746-4Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    OMG (1991) The object management architecture. OMGGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO/IEC (1999) ODP type repository function. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 N2057Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO/IEC (1995) The ODP trading function. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bouhdadi M et al. (2000) An informational object model for ODP applications. Malay J Comput Sci 13(2):21–32Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spivey J.M (1992) The Z reference manual. Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    IUT (1992) SDL: Specification and description language. IUT-T-Rec. Z.100Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO/IUT (1998) LOTOS: A formal description technique based on the temporal ordering of observational behavior. ISO/IEC 8807Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bowman H et al. (1995) FDTs for ODP. Comput Stand Interf J Elsevier 17(5–6):457–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rumbaugh J et al. (1999). The unified modeling language. Addison WesleyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rumpe B (1998) A note on semantics with an emphasis on UML. In: Second ECOOP Workshop on Precise Behavioral Semantics, Springer LNCS 1543:167–188.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Evans A et al. (1998) Making UML precise. Object Oriented Programming, Systems languages and Applications, (OOPSLA'98), Vancouver, Canada, ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Evans A et al. (1999) The UML as a formal modeling notation. LNCS 1618, Springer, pp 349–364Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Warmer J, Kleppe A (1998) The object constraint language: precise modeling with UML. Addison WesleyGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kent S et al. (1999) A meta-model semantics for structural constraints in UML. In: Kilov H, Rumpe B, Simmonds I (eds) Behavioral specifications for businesses and systems, Kluwer, Chapter 9Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Evans E et al. (1999) Meta-modeling semantics of UML. In: Kilov H, Rumpe B, Simmonds I (eds) Behavioral specifications for businesses and systems, Kluwer, Chapter 4.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmidt DA (1986) Denotational semantics: A methodology for language development. Allyn and Bacon, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Myers G (1979) The art of software testing. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Binder R (1999) Testing object oriented systems. Models patterns and tools. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cockburn A (2002) Agile software development. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rumpe B (2004) Agile Modeling with UML. Springer LNCS 2941:297–309Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Beck K (2001) Column on test-first approach. IEEE Software 18(5):87–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Briand L (2001) A UML-based approach to system testing. Springer LNCS 2185:194–208Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rumpe B (2003) Model-based testing of object-oriented systems. Springer LNCS 2852:380–402Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rumpe B (2002) Executable modeling UML. A vision or a nightmare? In: Issues and Trends of Information technology management in Contemporary Associations, Seattle, Idea Group, London, pp 697–701Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bouhdadi M et al. (2002) An UML-based meta-language for the QoS-aware enterprise specification of open distributed systems. Collaborative Business Ecosystems and Virtual Enterprises, FIP Series, Springer 85:255–264Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bouhdadi M, Balouki Y, Chabbar E (2007) Meta-modelling syntax and semantics for structural concepts for open networked enterprises. LNCS 4707:45–54Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    France R, Kent S, Evans A, France R (1999) What does the term semantics mean in the context of UML. In: Moreira Ana MD, Demeyer S (eds) ECOOP Workshops 1999, ECOOP’99 Workshop Reader, Springer, LNCS 1743:34–36Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Youssef Balouki
    • 1
  • Mohamed Bouhdadi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceMohammed V UniversityMorocco

Personalised recommendations