Advertisement

Transformation of UML and OCL Models into Filmstrip Models

  • Frank Hilken
  • Lars Hamann
  • Martin Gogolla
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8568)

Abstract

This contribution presents an automatic transformation from UML and OCL models into enriched UML and OCL models, so-called filmstrip models, which embody temporal information when employing OCL while maintaining the same functionality as the original model. The approach uses a combination of object and sequence diagrams that allows for a wide range of possible OCL constraints about sequences of operation calls and their temporal properties. The modeler does not need to account for such properties while creating the original model. Errors found by constraints for the filmstrip model can easily be related back to the original model, as the elements of the filmstrip model are synchronized with the original model and the backwards calculation is generally simple. The approach is implemented in a UML and OCL modeling tool.

Keywords

Application Model Class Diagram Sequence Diagram Object Constraint Language Linear Temporal Logic 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Lail, M., Abdunabi, R., France, R.B., Ray, I.: Rigorous Analysis of Temporal Access Control Properties in Mobile Systems. In: ICECCS. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Georg, G., Ray, I.: On Challenges of Model Transformation from UML to Alloy. Software and System Modeling 9(1), 69–86 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bill, R., Gabmeyer, S., Kaufmann, P., Seidl, M.: OCL meets CTL: Towards CTL-Extended OCL Model Checking. In: Proceedings of the MODELS 2013 OCL Workshop, vol. 1092, pp. 13–22 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: UMLtoCSP: A Tool for the Formal Verification of UML/OCL Models using Constraint Programming. In: Stirewalt, R.E.K., Egyed, A., Fischer, B. (eds.) ASE 2007, pp. 547–548. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark, T.: Model Based Functional Testing using Pattern Directed Filmstrips. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on the Automation of Software Test, pp. 53–61. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conrad, S., Turowski, K.: Temporal OCL Meeting Specification Demands for Business Components. In: Unified Modeling Language: Systems Analysis, Design and Development Issues, pp. 151–165. IGI Publishing (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dick, J., Faivre, A.: Automating the generation and sequencing of test cases from model-based specifications. In: Larsen, P.G., Wing, J.M. (eds.) FME 1993. LNCS, vol. 670, pp. 268–284. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D’Souza, D., Wills, A.: Catalysis. Practical Rigor and Refinement: Extending OMT, Fusion, and Objectory. Tech. rep. (1995), http://catalysis.org
  9. 9.
    Flake, S., Müller, W.: Past- and Future-Oriented Time-Bounded Temporal Properties with OCL. In: SEFM 2004. pp. 154–163. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gil, J., Kent, S.: Three Dimensional Software Modeling. In: Torii, K., Futatsugi, K., Kemmerer, R.A. (eds.) ICSE 1998. pp. 105–114. IEEE Computer Society (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gogolla, M., Büttner, F., Richters, M.: USE: A UML-Based Specification Environment for Validating UML and OCL. Science of Computer Programming 69 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gogolla, M., Hamann, L., Hilken, F., Kuhlmann, M., France, R.B.: From Application Models to Filmstrip Models: An Approach to Automatic Validation of Model Dynamics. In: Fill, H.G., Karagiannis, D., Reimer, U. (eds.) Modellierung (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kanso, B., Taha, S.: Temporal Constraint Support for OCL. In: Czarnecki, K., Hedin, G. (eds.) SLE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7745, pp. 83–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    OMG (ed.): Object Constraint Language, Version 2.3.1. OMG, OMG Document (2012), www.omg.org
  16. 16.
    Salas, P.A.P., Aichernig, B.K.: Automatic Test Case Generation for OCL: A Mutation Approach. Tech. Rep. 321, The United Nations University – International Institute for Software Technology (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Snook, C., Butler, M.: UML-B: A Plug-in for the Event-B Tool Set. In: Börger, E., Butler, M., Bowen, J.P., Boca, P. (eds.) ABZ 2008. LNCS, vol. 5238, p. 344. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Soden, M., Eichler, H.: Temporal Extensions of OCL Revisited. In: Paige, R.F., Hartman, A., Rensink, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5562, pp. 190–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yu, L., France, R.B., Ray, I.: Scenario-Based Static Analysis of UML Class Models. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 234–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ziemann, P., Gogolla, M.: OCL Extended with Temporal Logic. In: Broy, M., Zamulin, A.V. (eds.) PSI 2003. LNCS, vol. 2890, pp. 351–357. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Hilken
    • 1
  • Lars Hamann
    • 1
  • Martin Gogolla
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BremenGermany

Personalised recommendations