Advertisement

Multi-view Consistency in UML: A Survey

  • Alexander KnappEmail author
  • Till Mossakowski
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10800)

Abstract

We study the question of consistency of multi-view models in UML and OCL. We critically survey the large amount of literature that already exists. We find that only limited subsets of the UML/OCL have been covered so far and that consistency checks mostly only cover structural aspects, whereas only few methods also address behaviour. We also give a classification of different techniques for multi-view UML/OCL consistency: consistency rules, the system model approach, dynamic meta-modelling, universal logic, and heterogeneous transformation. Finally, we briefly outline a possible comprehensive distributed semantics approach to consistency.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahmad, M.A., Nadeem, A.: Consistency checking of UML models using description logics: a critical review. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Emerging Technologies (ICET 2010), pp. 310–315. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allaki, D., Dahchour, M., En-Nouaary, A.: A new taxonomy of inconsistencies in UML models with their detection methods for better MDE. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Appl. 12(1), 48–65 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amaya, P., Gonzalez, C., Murillo, J.M.: Towards a subject-oriented model-driven framework. In: Aksit, M., Roubtsova, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Aspect-Based and Model-Based Separation of Concerns in Software Systems (ABMB 2005). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 31–44 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bashir, R.S., Lee, S.P., Khan, S.U.R., Farid, S., Chang, V.: UML models consistency management: guidelines for software quality manager. Int. J. Inf. Manag. Part A 36(6), 883–899 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boronat, A., Knapp, A., Meseguer, J., Wirsing, M.: What Is a Multi-modeling Language? In: Corradini, A., Montanari, U. (eds.) WADT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5486, pp. 71–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03429-9_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Braatz, B., Klein, M., Schröter, G.: Semantical Integration of Object-Oriented Viewpoint Specification Techniques. In: Ehrig, H., Damm, W., Desel, J., Große-Rhode, M., Reif, W., Schnieder, E., Westkämper, E. (eds.) Integration of Software Specification Techniques for Applications in Engineering. LNCS, vol. 3147, pp. 602–626. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27863-4_32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Breu, R., Grosu, R., Huber, E., Rumpe, B., Schwerin, W.: Systems, views and models of UML. In: Schader, M., Korthaus, A. (eds.) The Unified Modeling Language. Physica-Verlag HD, Heidelberg (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48673-9_7
  8. 8.
    Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: On the verification of UML/OCL class diagrams using constraint programming. J. Syst. Softw. 93, 1–23 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Combemale, B., Deantoni, J., Baudry, B., France, R.B., Jézéquel, J.-M., Gray, J.: Globalizing modeling languages. IEEE Comput. 47(6), 68–71 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cook, S., Kleppe, A., Mitchell, R., Rumpe, B., Warmer, J., Wills, A.C.: Defining UML family members using prefaces. In: Mingins, C., Meyer, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages (TOOLS 1999), pp. 102–114. IEEE (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dijkman, R.M.: Consistency in multi-viewpoint architectural design. Ph.D. thesis. Universiteit Twente (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dingel, J., Diskin, Z., Zito, A.: Understanding and improving UML package merge. Softw. Syst. Model. 7(4), 443–467 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diskin, Z., Xiong, Y., Czarnecki, K.: Specifying Overlaps of Heterogeneous Models for Global Consistency Checking. In: Dingel, J., Solberg, A. (eds.) MODELS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6627, pp. 165–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21210-9_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dragomir, I., Graf, S., Karsai, G., Noyrit, F., Ober, I., Torre, D., Labiche, Y., Genero, M., Elaasar, M. (eds.): Joint Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Model-Based Architecting of Cyber-physical and Embedded Systems (ACES-MB 2015) and 1st International Workshop on UML Consistency Rules (WUCOR 2015). CEUR WS, vol. 1508 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ehrig, H., Damm, W., Desel, J., Große-Rhode, M., Reif, W., Schnieder, E., Westkämper, E. (eds.): Integration of Software Specification Techniques for Applications in Engineering. LNCS, vol. 3147. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/b100778
  17. 17.
    Elaasar, M., Briand, L.C.: An overview of UML consistency management. Technical report SCE-04-18. Carleton University (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Emde Boas, P.: Formalizing UML: mission impossible? In: Andrade, L., Moreira, A., Deshpande, A., Kent, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the OOPSLA 1998 Workshop on Formalizing UML: why? How? (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Engels, G., Heckel, R., Taentzer, G., Ehrig, H.: A combined reference model - and view-based approach to system specification. Intl. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 7(4), 457–477 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Evans, A., Lano, K., France, R., Rumpe, B.: Meta-modeling semantics of UML. In: Kilov, H., Rumpe, B., Simmonds, I. (eds.) Behavioral Specifications of Businesses and Systems, pp. 45–60. Kluver Academic Publisher, Dordrecht (1999). Chapter 4Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Evans, A., France, R., Lano, K., Rumpe, B.: The UML as a Formal Modeling Notation. In: Bézivin, J., Muller, P.-A. (eds.) UML 1998. LNCS, vol. 1618, pp. 336–348. Springer, Heidelberg (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-48480-6_26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    von Hanxleden, R., Lee, E.A., Motika, C., Fuhrmann, H.: Multi-view Modeling and Pragmatics in 2020. In: Calinescu, R., Garlan, D. (eds.) Monterey Workshop 2012. LNCS, vol. 7539, pp. 209–223. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34059-8_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hilken, F., Niemann, P., Gogolla, M., Wille, R.: Towards a catalog of structural and behavioral verification tasks for UML/OCL models. In: Oberweis, A., Reussner, R.H. (eds.) Proceedings of Modellierung 2016. Lecture Notes in Informatics, pp. 117–124. GI, Bonn (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hoffmann, V., Lichter, H., Nyßen, A., Walter, A.: Towards the integration of UML and textual use case modeling. J. Object Technol. 8(3), 85–100 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huzar, Z., Kuzniarz, L., Reggio, G., Sourrouille, J.L.: Consistency problems in UML-based software development. In: Nunes, N.J., Selic, B., da Silva, A.R., Alvarez, A.T. (eds.) UML 2004. LNCS, vol. 3297, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-31797-5_1
  26. 26.
    IEEE Standards Association: Recommended practice for architectural description for software-intensive systems. Standard 1471–2000. IEEE Computer Society (2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    International Organization for Standardization: Systems and software engineering – architecture description. Standard 42010:2011. ISO/IEC/IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kholkar, D., Krishna, G.M., Shrotri, U., Venkatesh, R.: Visual specification and analysis of use cases. In: Naps, T.L., Pauw, W.D. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Software Visualization (SOFTVIS 2005), pp. 77–85. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim, S.-K., David, C.: Formalizing the UML Class Diagram Using Object-Z. In: France, R., Rumpe, B. (eds.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 83–98. Springer, Heidelberg (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46852-8_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    König, H., Diskin, Z.: Advanced Local Checking of Global Consistency in Heterogeneous Multimodeling. In: Wąsowski, A., Lönn, H. (eds.) ECMFA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9764, pp. 19–35. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42061-5_2 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    König, H., Diskin, Z.: Efficient Consistency Checking of Interrelated Models. In: Anjorin, A., Espinoza, H. (eds.) ECMFA 2017. LNCS, vol. 10376, pp. 161–178. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61482-3_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Langer, P., Mayerhofer, T., Wimmer, M., Kappel, G.: On the usage of UML: initial results of analyzing open UML models. In: Fill, H.-G., Karagiannis, D., Reimer, U. (eds.) Proceedings of Modellierung 2014. Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol. 225, pp. 289–304. GI, Bonn (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Latella, D., Majzik, I., Massink, M.: Automatic verification of a behavioural subset of UML statechart diagrams using the SPIN model-checker. Form. Aspects Comput. 11(6), 637–664 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lucas, F.J., Molina, F., Toval, A.: A systematic review of UML model consistency management. J. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(12), 1631–1645 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mens, T., van der Straeten, R., Simmonds, J.: A framework for managing consistency of evolving UML models. In: Yang, H. (ed.) Software Evolution with UML and XML, pp. 1–30. Idea Group (2005). Chapter 1Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mohammadi, R.G., Barforoush, A.A.: Enforcing component dependency in UML deployment diagram for cloud applications. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Telecommunications (IST 2014), pp. 412–417. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mossakowski, T.: Heterogeneous specification and the heterogeneous tool set. Habilitation thesis. Universität Bremen (2005)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mossakowski, T., Tarlecki, A.: Heterogeneous Logical Environments for Distributed Specifications. In: Corradini, A., Montanari, U. (eds.) WADT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5486, pp. 266–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03429-9_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Munker, F., Albers, A., Wagner, D., Behrendt, M.: Multi-view modeling in SysML: thematic structuring for multiple thematic views. In: Madni, A.M., Boehm, B., Sievers, M., Wheaton, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER 2014). Procedia Computer Science, vol. 28, pp. 531–538. Elsevier (2014)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Object Management Group. Distributed Ontology, Modeling, and Specification Language (DOL). In Process ptc/2016-02-37. Version 1.0 - Beta1. OMG (2016). http://www.omg.org/spec/DOL/1.0/Beta1
  41. 41.
    Object Management Group. Object Constraint Language: Standard formal/2014-02-03. Version 2.4. OMG (2014). http://www.omg.org/spec/OCL/2.4
  42. 42.
    Mouheb, D., Debbabi, M., Pourzandi, M., Wang, L., Nouh, M., Ziarati, R., Alhadidi, D., Talhi, C., Lima, V.: Unified Modeling Language. Aspect-Oriented Security Hardening of UML Design Models. LNCS, pp. 11–22. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16106-8_2
  43. 43.
    Paige, R.F., Brooke, P.J., Ostroff, J.S.: Metamodel-based model conformance and multiview consistency. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 16(3), 11 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pap, Z., Majzik, I., Pataricza, A., Szegi, A.: Completeness and consistency analysis of UML statechart specifications. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Design and Diagnostics of Electronic Circuits and Systems (DDECS 2001), pp. 83–90. IEEE (2001)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pap, Z., Majzik, I., Pataricza, A., Szegi, A.: Methods of checking general safety criteria in UML statechart specifications. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 87(1), 89–107 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sabetzadeh, M., Nejati, S., Liaskos, S., Easterbrook, S.M., Chechik, M.: Consistency checking of conceptual models via model merging. In: Sutcliffe, A., Jalote, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 221–230. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schürr, A., Winter, A.J.: Formal definition and refinement of UML’s module/package concept. In: Bosch, J., Mitchell, S. (eds.) ECOOP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1357, pp. 211–215. Springer, Heidelberg (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-69687-3_43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shah, A.A., Kerzhner, A.A., Schaefer, D., Paredis, C.J.J.: Multi-view Modeling to Support Embedded Systems Engineering in SysML. In: Engels, G., Lewerentz, C., Schäfer, W., Schürr, A., Westfechtel, B. (eds.) Graph Transformations and Model-Driven Engineering. LNCS, vol. 5765, pp. 580–601. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17322-6_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Torre, D., Labiche, Y., Genero, M.: UML consistency rules: a systematic mapping study. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2014). ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Torre, D., Labiche, Y., Genero, M., Elaasar, M.: A systematic identification of consistency rules for UML diagrams. Technical report SCE-15-01. Carleton University (2016)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Usman, M., Nadeem, A., Kim, T.-H., Cho, E.-S.: A survey of consistency checking techniques for UML models. In: Proceedings of the Advanced Software Engineering and Its Applications (ASEA 2008), pp. 57–62. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität AugsburgAugsburgGermany
  2. 2.Otto-von-Guericke Universität MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations