Abstract
UML 2 interactions describe system behavior over time in a declarative way. The standard approach to defining their formal semantics enumerates traces of events; other representation formats, like Büchi automata or prime event structures, have been suggested, too. We describe another, more succinct format, interaction structures, which is based on asymmetric event structures. It simplifies the integration of real time, and complex operators like alt and break, and leads to an efficient semantic representation of interactions. We provide the formalism, and a prototypical implementation highlighting the benefits of our approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Baldan, P., Corradini, A., Montanari, U.: Contextual Petri Nets, Asymmetric Event Structures, and Processes. Inf. Comput. 171(1), 1–49 (2001)
Dobing, B., Parsons, J.: How UML Is Used. Comm. ACM 49(5), 109–113 (2006)
Dobing, B., Parsons, J.: Dimensions of UML Diagram Use: Practitioner Survey and Research Agenda. In: Siau, K., Erickson, J. (eds.) Principle Advancements in Database Management Technologies: New Applications and Frameworks, pp. 271–290. IGI Publishing (2010)
Grosu, R., Smolka, S.A.: Safety-Liveness Semantics for UML 2.0 Sequence Diagrams. In: Proc. 5th Conf. Appl. of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD 2005), pp. 6–14. IEEE Computer Society (2005)
Hammal, Y.: Branching Time Semantics for UML 2.0 Sequence Diagrams. In: Najm, E., Pradat-Peyre, J.-F., Donzeau-Gouge, V.V. (eds.) FORTE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4229, pp. 259–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Harel, D., Maoz, S.: Assert and Negate Revisited: Modal Semantics for UML Sequence Diagrams. J. Softw. Syst. Model. 7(2), 237–252 (2008)
Knapp, A., Wuttke, J.: Model Checking of UML 2.0 Interactions. In: Kühne, T. (ed.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4364, pp. 42–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Küster-Filipe, J.: Modelling Concurrent Interactions. Theo. Comp. Sci. 351(2), 203–220 (2006)
Micskei, Z., Waeselynck, H.: The Many Meanings of UML 2 Sequence Diagrams: A Survey. J. Softw. Syst. Model. 10(4), 489–514 (2011)
Nayak, A., Samanta, D.: Automatic Test Data Synthesis using UML Sequence Diagrams. J. Obj. Techn. 9(2), 75–104 (2010), http://www.jot.fm/issues/issue201003/article2/
Nielsen, M., Plotkin, G., Winskel, G.: Petri Nets, Event Structures and Domains, Part I. Theo. Comp. Sci. 13, 85–108 (1981)
Object Management Group: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure. Version 2.4.1. OMG Document Number: formal/2011-08-06. Tech. rep., Object Management Group (August 2011), http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/
Störrle, H.: Assert, Negate and Refinement in UML-2 Interactions. In: Jürjens, J., Rumpe, B., France, R., Fernandey, E.B. (eds.) Proc. Ws. Critical Systems Development with UML. Technical report TUM-I0317. pp. 79–94 (2003)
Störrle, H.: Semantics of Interactions in UML 2.0. In: Hosking, J., Cox, P. (eds.) Proc. IEEE Symp. Human Centric Computing Lang. and Env., pp. 129–136. IEEE Computer Society (2003)
Wielemaker, J., Schrijvers, T., Triska, M., Lager, T.: SWI-Prolog. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 12(1-2), 67–96 (2012)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Knapp, A., Störrle, H. (2014). Efficient Representation of Timed UML 2 Interactions. In: Amyot, D., Fonseca i Casas, P., Mussbacher, G. (eds) System Analysis and Modeling: Models and Reusability. SAM 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8769. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11743-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11743-0_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-11742-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-11743-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)