Mobile UML Statecharts with Localities

  • Diego Latella
  • Mieke Massink
  • Hubert Baumeister
  • Martin Wirsing
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3267)


In this paper an extension of a behavioural subset of UML statecharts for mobile computations is proposed. We study collections of UML objects whose behaviour is given by statecharts. Each object resides in a given place, and a collection of such places forms a network. Objects are aware of the localities of other objects, i.e. the logical names of the places where the latter reside, but not of the physical name of such places. In addition to their usual capabilities, such as sending messages etc., objects can move between places and create and destroy places, which may result in a deep reconfiguration of the network. A formal semantics is presented for this mobility extension which builds upon a core semantics definition of statecharts without mobility which we have used successfully in several contexts in the past years. An example of a model of a network service which exploits mobility for resource usage balance is provided using the proposed extension of UML statecharts.


Operational Semantic Formal Semantic Abstract Syntax Mobile Computation Input Queue 
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.
    Bauer, B., Müller, J., Odell, J.: Agent UML: A Formalism for Specifying Multiagent Interaction. In: Ciancarini, P., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) AOSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1957, pp. 91–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baumeister, H., Koch, N., Kosiuczenko, P., Wirsing, M.: Extending Activity Diagrams to Model Mobile Systems. In: Aksit, M., Mezini, M., Unland, R. (eds.) NODe 2002. LNCS, vol. 2591, pp. 278–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broersen, J., Wieringa, R.: Interpreting UML-statecharts in a modal μ-calculus (unpublished manuscript, 1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cardelli, L., Gordon, A.: Mobile ambients. In: Nivat, M. (ed.) ETAPS 1998 and FOSSACS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1378, pp. 140–145. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Nicola, R., Ferrari, G., Pugliese, R.: KLAIM: A kernel language for agents interaction and mobility. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(5), 315–329 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gnesi, S., Latella, D., Massink, M.: Modular semantics for a UML Statechart Diagrams kernel and its extension to Multicharts and Branching Time Model Checking. The Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 51(1), 43–75 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klein, C., Rausch, A., Sihling, M., Wen, Z.: Extension of the Unified Modeling Language for mobile agents. In: Siau, K., Halpin, T. (eds.) Unified Modeling Language: Systems Analysis, Design and Development Issues, ch. 8. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Knapp, A., Merz, S., Wirsing, M.: On refinement of mobile UML state machines. In: Proc. AMAST (to appear, 2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kosiuczenko, P.: Sequence Diagrams for Mobility. In: Krogstie, J. (ed.) MobIMod 2002. LNCS, vol. XXXX. Springer, Heidelberg (to appear, 2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuhn, A., von Oheimb, D.: Interacting state machines for mobility. In: Araki, K., Gnesi, S., Mandrioli, D. (eds.) FME 2003. LNCS, vol. 2805, pp. 698–718. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Latella, D., Majzik, I., Massink, M.: Towards a formal operational semantics of UML statechart diagrams. In: Ciancarini, P., Fantechi, A., Gorrieri, R. (eds.) IFIP TC6/WG6.1 Third International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Oriented Distributed Systems, pp. 331–347. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Latella, D., Massink, M.: On mobility extensions of UML Statecharts; a pragmatic approach. In: Najm, E., Nestmann, U., Stevens, P. (eds.) FMOODS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2884, pp. 199–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lilius, J., Paltor, I.P.: Formalising UML state machines for model checking. In: France, R.B., Rumpe, B. (eds.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 430–444. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lilius, J., Paltor Porres, I.: The semantics of UML state machines. Technical Report 273, Turku Centre for Computer Science (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Merz, S., Wirsing, M., Zappe, J.: A Spatio-Temporal Logic for the Specification and Refinement of Mobile Systems. In: Pezzé, M. (ed.) ETAPS 2003 and FASE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2621, pp. 87–101. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mikk, E., Lakhnech, Y., Siegel, M.: Hierarchical automata as model for statecharts. In: Shyamasundar, R., Euda, K. (eds.) ASIAN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1345, pp. 181–196. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Object Management Group, Inc. OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification - version 1.5 (2003),
  18. 18.
    von der Beeck, M.: A structured operational semantics for UML-statecharts. Software Systems Modeling (1), 130–141 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wieringa, R., Broersen, J.: A minimal transition system semantics for lightweight class and behavior diagrams. In: Broy, M., Coleman, D., Maibaum, T., Rumpe, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the ICSE 1998 Workshop on Precise Semantics for Software Modeling techniques (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diego Latella
    • 1
  • Mieke Massink
    • 1
  • Hubert Baumeister
    • 2
  • Martin Wirsing
    • 2
  1. 1.CNRIstituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell’InformazionePisaItaly
  2. 2.LMUInstitut für InformatikMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations