Advertisement

An Attempt at Analysing the Consistency Problems in the UML from a Classical Algebraic Viewpoint

  • E. Astesiano
  • G. Reggio
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2755)

Abstract

In this paper, after introducing the problem and a brief survey of the current approaches, we look at the consistency problems in the UML in terms of the well-known machinery of classical algebraic specifications. Thus, first we review how the various kinds of consistency problems were formulated in that setting. Then, and this is the first contribution of our note, we try to reduce, as much as possible, the UML problems to that frame. That analysis, we believe, is rather clarifying in itself and allows us to better understand what is new and what instead could be treated in terms of that machinery. We conclude with some directions for handling those problems, basically with constrained modelling methods that reduce and help precisely individuate the sources of possible inconsistencies.

Keywords

State Machine Class Diagram Abstract Syntax Concrete Syntax Consistency Problem 
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.
    Consistency Problems in UML-based Software Development: Workshop Materials. In: Kuzniarz, L., Reggio, G., Sourrouille, J.L., Huzar, Z. (eds.) Consistency Problems in UML-based Software Development: Workshop Materials, Research Report 2002-06 (2002), Available at http://www.ipd.bth.se/uml2002/RR-2002-06.pdf
  2. 2.
    Astesiano, E., Bidoit, M., Kirchner, H., Krieg-Brückner, B., Mosses, P.D., Sannella, D., Tarlecki, A.: Casl: the Common Algebraic Specification Language. T.C.S. 286(2) (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Astesiano, E., Krieg-Brückner, B., Kreowski, H.-J. (eds.): IFIP WG 1.3 Book on Algebraic Foundations of System Specification. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Astesiano, E., Reggio, G.: Formalism and Method. T.C.S. 236(1,2) (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Astesiano, E., Reggio, G.: Knowledge Structuring and Representation in Requirement Specification. In: Proc. SEKE 2002. ACM Press, New York (2002), Available at ftp://ftp.disi.unige.it/person/ReggioG/AstesianoReggio02a.pdf Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Astesiano, E., Reggio, G.: Tight Structuring for Precise UML-based Requirement Specifications: Complete Version. Technical Report DISI–TR–03–06, DISI, Università di Genova, Italy (2003), Available at ftp://ftp.disi.unige.it/person/ReggioG/AstesianoReggio03c.pdf
  7. 7.
    Baresi, L., Pezzè, M.: Improving UML with Petri Nets. ENTCS 44(4) (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baumeister, H., Cerioli, M., Haxthausen, A., Mossakowski, T., Mosses, P., Sannella, D., Tarlecki, A.: Formal Methods 1999 - Casl (1999); The Common Algebraic Specification Language - Semantics, Available on compact disc published by Springer- VerlagGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bhaduri, P., Venkatesh, R.: Formal Consistency of Models in Multi-View Modelling. In: [1]Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bodeveix, J.-P., Millan, T., Percebois, C., Le Camus, C., Bazes, P., Ferraud, L.: Extending OCL for Verifying UML Model Consistency. In: [1]Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clark, T., Evans, A., Kent, S.: A Metamodel for Package Extension with Renaming. In: Jézéquel, J.-M., Hussmann, H., Cook, S. (eds.) UML 2002. LNCS, vol. 2460, p. 305. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coscia, E., Reggio, G.: JTN: A Java-targeted Graphic Formal Notation for Reactive and Concurrent Systems. In: Finance, J.-P. (ed.) FASE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1577, pp. 77–97. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davies, J., Crichton, C.: Concurrency and Refinement in the UML. ENTCS 70(3) (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Derrick, J., Akehurst, D., Boiten, E.: A Framework for UML Consistency. In: [1]Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ehrich, H.D.: On the Realization and Implementation. In: Gruska, J., Chytil, M.P. (eds.) MFCS 1981. LNCS, vol. 118, pp. 271–280. Springer, Heidelberg (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ehrig, H., Kreowski, H.J., Mahr, B., Padawitz, P.: Algebraic Implementation of Abstract Data Types. T.C.S. 20 (1982)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Engels, G., Hausmann, J.H., Heckel, R., Sauer, S.: Testing the Consistency of Dynamic UML Diagrams. In: Proceedings of IDPT 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Engels, G., Kuester, J.M., Groenewegen, L.: Consistent Interaction of Software Components. In: Proceedings of IDPT 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Engels, G., Kuster, J.M., Groenewegen, L., Heckel, R.: A Methodology for Specifying and Analyzing Consistency of Object-Oriented Behavioral Models. In: Gruhn, V. (ed.) Proceedings of the 8th European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC) and 9th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE-9). ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Engels, G., Kuster, J.M., Heckel, R.: Towards Consistency-Preserving Model Evolution. In: Proceedings ICSE Workshop on Model Evolution, Florida, USA (May 2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fowler, M., Scott, K.: UML Distilled: 2nd edn. Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grosse-Rhode, M.: Integrating Semantics for Object-Oriented System Models. In: Orejas, F., Spirakis, P.G., van Leeuwen, J. (eds.) ICALP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2076, p. 40. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gryce, C., Finkelstein, A., Nentwich, C.: Lightweight Checking for UML Based Software Development. In: [1]Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hnatkowska, B., Huzar, Z., Kuzniarz, L., Tuzinkiewicz, L.: A Systematic Approach to Consistency within UML Based Software Development Process. In: [1]Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jurjens, J.: Formal Semantics for Interacting UML subsystems. In: Jacobs, B., Rensink, A. (eds.) FMOODS 2002. IFIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 209. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lano, K., Clark, D., Androutsopoulos, K.: Formalising Inter-model Consistency of the UML. In: [1]Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li, X., Lillius, J.: Timing Analysis of UML Sequence Diagram. In: France, R.B., Rumpe, B. (eds.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 661–674. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mascardi, V., Reggio, G., Astesiano, E., Martelli, M.: From Requirement Specification to Prototype Execution: a Combination of Multiview Use-Case Driven Methods and Agent-Oriented Techniques. In: Proc. SEKE 2003. ACM Press, New York (2003) (to appear)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    OMG Architecture Board MDA Drafting Team. Model Driven Architecture (MDA) (2001), Available at http://cgi.omg.org/docs/ormsc/01-07-01.pdf
  30. 30.
    Mosses, P.D.: CoFI: The Common Framework Initiative for Algebraic Specification and Development. In: Bidoit, M., Dauchet, M. (eds.) CAAP 1997, FASE 1997, and TAPSOFT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1214. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rational. Rational Unified Process© for System Engineering SE 1.0 (2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reggio, G., Astesiano, E., Choppy, C., Hussmann, H.: Analysing UML Active Classes and Associated State Machines – A Lightweight Formal Approach. In: Maibaum, T. (ed.) FASE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1783, p. 127. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reggio, G., Cerioli, M., Astesiano, E.: Towards a Rigorous Semantics of UML Supporting its Multiview Approach. In: Hussmann, H. (ed.) FASE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2029, p. 171. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schatz, B., Braun, P., Huber, F., Wisspeintner, A.: Consistency in Model-Based Development. In: Proc. of 3.ECBS 200 IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sourroille, J.L., Caplat, G.: Checking UML Model Consistency. In: [1]Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    UML Revision Task Force. OMG UML Specification 1.3 (2000), Available at http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/00-03-01.pdf
  38. 38.
    Wirsing, M.: Algebraic Specifications. In: van Leeuwen, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theoret. Comput. Sci., vol. B. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Astesiano
    • 1
  • G. Reggio
    • 1
  1. 1.DISIUniversità di GenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations