On formalizing UML state machines using ASMs

Information and Software Technology

Volumn 46, Issue 5 SPEC. ISS., 2004, Pages 287-292

  Börger, Egon ^a   Cavarra, Alessandra ^b   Riccobene, Elvinia ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PISA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CATANIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; BOOLEAN FUNCTIONS; MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS; SEMANTICS;

STATE DIAGRAMS; UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE (UML);

OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING;

EID: 1142299907     PISSN: 09505849     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2003.09.009     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. OMG Unified Modeling Languages Specification, version 1.4, 2001.
2. Booch G., Rumbaugh J., Jacobson I. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. 1999;Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
3. Börger E., Cavarra A., Riccobene E. Modeling the dynamics of UML state machines. LNCS. 1912:2000;223-241.
4. Börger E., Cavarra A., Riccobene E. A precise semantics of UML State Machines: making semantic variation points and ambiguities explicit. in: Proceedings of the SFEDL02 - ETAPS 2002. 2002.
5. Börger E., Cavarra A., Riccobene E. Modeling the meaning of transitions from and to concurrent states in UML State Machines. in: SAC 2003. 2003.
6. Börger E., Schmid J. Composition and submachine concepts for sequential ASMs. LNCS 1862. 2000;41-60.
7. A. Cavarra, Applying abstract state machines to formalize and integrate the UML lightweight method, PhD thesis, 2000.
8. Cavarra A., Riccobene E. Simulating UML statecharts. in: Proceedings of the EUROCAST 2001. 2001.
9. Compton K., Huggins J., Shen W. A semantic model for the state machine in the Unified Modeling Language. in: Dynamic Behavior in UML Models: Semantic Questions UML 2000 Workshop. 2000.
10. Evans A.S., Bruel J.-M., France R., Lano K., Rumpe B. Making UML precise. in: OOP-SLA'98. 1998.
11. R.B. France, A.S. Evans, K.C. Lano, B. Rumpe, The UML as a formal modeling notation, Computer Standards and Interfaces 19 (1998) 325-334.
12. Gnesi S., Latella D., Massink M. Model checking UML statechart diagrams using JACK. in: Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering. 1999;IEEE.
13. M. Gogolla, F.P. Presicce, State diagrams in UML: a formal semantics using graph transformations, in: Proceedings of the PSMT'98, TUM-I9803, 1998.
14. Gurevich Y. Evolving Algebras 1993: Lipari guide. Börger E. Specification and Validation Methods. 1995;9-36 Oxford University Press.
15. Y. Jin, R. Esser, J.W. Janneck, Describing the syntax and semantics of UML statecharts in a heterogeneous modelling environment, in: Diagrams 2002, LNAI 2317, 2002.
16. J. Jürjens, A UML statecharts semantics with message-passing, in: SAC2002, ACM, 2002.
17. Jürjens J. Formal semantics for interacting UML subsystems. in: FMOODS 2002. 2002;Kluwer, Dordrecht.
18. S. Kuske, A formal semantics of UML state machines based on structured graph transformation, in: Proceedings of the UML 2001, LNCS 2185, 2001.
19. Latella D., Majzik I., Massink M. Automatic verification of a behavioural subset of UML statechart diagrams using the SPIN model-checker. FAC99. 11:(6):1999.
20. Latella D., Majzik I., Massink M. Towards a formal operational semantics of UML statechart diagrams. in: Proceedings of the FMOODS99. 1999.
21. I. Paltor, J. Lilius. Formalising UML state machines for model checking, in: Proceedings of the UML'99, LNCS 1723, Springer, Berlin, 1999.
22. The Precise UML Group.
23. G. Reggio, E. Astesiano, C. Choppy, H. Hussmann, Analysing UML active classes and associated state machines - a lightweight formal approach, in: Proceedings of the FASE 2000, LNCS 1783, 2000.
24. Schfer T., Knapp A., Merz S. Model checking UML state machines and collaborations. ENTCS. 47:2001;1-13.
25. J. Schmid, Executing ASM specifications with AsmGofer, http://www.tydo.de/AsmGofer.
26. M. von der Beeck, Formalization of UML statecharts, in: Proceedings of the UML 2001, LNCS 2185, Springer, Berlin, 2001.