Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Semantically Configurable Consistency Analysis for Class and Object Diagrams

  • Conference paper
Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS 2011)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 6981))

Abstract

Checking consistency between an object diagram (OD) and a class diagram (CD) is an important analysis problem. However, several variations in the semantics of CDs and ODs, as used in different contexts and for different purposes, create a challenge for analysis tools. To address this challenge in this paper we investigate semantically configurable model analysis. We formalize the variability in the language’s semantics using a feature model: each configuration that the model permits induces a different semantics. Moreover, we develop a parametrized analysis that can be instantiated to comply with every legal configuration of the feature model. Thus, the analysis is semantically configured and its results change according to the semantics induced by the selected feature configuration. The ideas are implemented using a parametrized transformation to Alloy. The work can be viewed as a case study example for a formal and automated approach to handling semantic variability in modeling languages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alloy Analyzer website, http://alloy.mit.edu/ (accessed July 2011)

  2. Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Georg, G., Ray, I.: On challenges of model transformation from UML to Alloy. Software and Systems Modeling 9(1), 69–86 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Batory, D.S.: Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas. In: Obbink, H., Pohl, K. (eds.) SPLC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3714, pp. 7–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Broy, M., Cengarle, M.V., Grönniger, H., Rumpe, B.: Considerations and Rationale for a UML System Model. In: Lano, K. (ed.) UML 2 Semantics and Applications. Wiley, Chichester (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Broy, M., Cengarle, M.V., Grönniger, H., Rumpe, B.: Definition of the System Model. In: Lano, K. (ed.) UML 2 Semantics and Applications. Wiley, Chichester (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: UMLtoCSP: a tool for the formal verification of UML/OCL models using constraint programming. In: ASE, pp. 547–548. ACM, New York (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Cengarle, M.V., Grönniger, H., Rumpe, B.: System Model Semantics of Class Diagrams. Informatik-Bericht 2008-05, Technische Universität Braunschweig (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cengarle, M.V., Grönniger, H., Rumpe, B.: Variability within modeling language definitions. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 670–684. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.: Generative Programming Methods, Tools, and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Evans, A., France, R.B., 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. FreeMarker, http://freemarker.org/ (accessed July 2011)

  12. Gogolla, M., Büttner, F., Richters, M.: USE: A UML-based specification environment for validating UML and OCL. Sci. Comput. Program 69(1-3), 27–34 (2007)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kästner, C., Thüm, T., Saake, G., Feigenspan, J., Leich, T., Wielgorz, F., Apel, S.: FeatureIDE: A tool framework for feature-oriented software development. In: ICSE, pp. 611–614 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Krahn, H., Rumpe, B., Völkel, S.: MontiCore: a framework for compositional development of domain specific languages. Int. J. on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT) 12(5), 353–372 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lu, Y., Atlee, J.M., Day, N.A., Niu, J.: Mapping template semantics to SMV. In: ASE, pp. 320–325. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Maoz, S., Ringert, J.O., Rumpe, B.: CD2Alloy: Class diagrams analysis using Alloy revisited. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) MODELS. LNCS, vol. 6981, pp. 592–607. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mendonça, M., Branco, M., Cowan, D.D.: S.P.L.O.T.: software product lines online tools. In: OOPSLA Companion, pp. 761–762 (2009), http://www.splot-research.org/

  19. MontiCore project, http://www.monticore.org/

  20. Niu, J., Atlee, J.M., Day, N.A.: Template semantics for model-based notations. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 29(10), 866–882 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Perlis, A.J.: Epigrams on programming. SIGPLAN Notices 17(9), 7–13 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Prout, A., Atlee, J.M., Day, N.A., Shaker, P.: Semantically configurable code generation. In: Busch, C., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 705–720. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Rumpe, B.: Modellierung mit UML. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Semantic variability project website, http://www.se-rwth.de/materials/semvar/

  25. Simmonds, J., Bastarrica, M.C.: A tool for automatic UML model consistency checking. In: ASE, pp. 431–432. ACM, New York (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Soeken, M., Wille, R., Kuhlmann, M., Gogolla, M., Drechsler, R.: Verifying UML/OCL models using Boolean satisfiability. In: DATE, pp. 1341–1344. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Van Der Straeten, R., Mens, T., Simmonds, J., Jonckers, V.: Using Description Logic to Maintain Consistency between UML Models. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 326–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Taleghani, A., Atlee, J.M.: Semantic variations among UML stateMachines. In: Wang, J., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4199, pp. 245–259. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Software Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Germany

    Shahar Maoz, Jan Oliver Ringert & Bernhard Rumpe

Authors
  1. Shahar Maoz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Oliver Ringert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bernhard Rumpe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing and Communications, Lancaster University, InfoLab21, South Drive, LA1 4WA, Lancaster, UK

    Jon Whittle

  2. School of Engineering and Information Sciences, Middlesex University, The Burroughs, Hendon, NW4 4BT, London, UK

    Tony Clark

  3. School of Engineering and Computer Science, Victoria University, P.O. Box 600, 6140, Wellington, New Zealand

    Thomas Kühne

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Maoz, S., Ringert, J.O., Rumpe, B. (2011). Semantically Configurable Consistency Analysis for Class and Object Diagrams. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. MODELS 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6981. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24485-8_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24485-8_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-24484-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-24485-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation