A formal approach to model refactoring and model refinement

Software and Systems Modeling

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 139-162

  Straeten, Ragnhild ^a   Jonckers, Viviane ^a   Mens, Tom ^b  

^a VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MONS   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Behaviour preservation; Description logics; Model refactoring; Model refinement; Model driven engineering; UML2.0

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; FINITE AUTOMATA; FORMAL LOGIC; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

DESCRIPTION LOGICS; MODEL REFACTORING; MODEL REFINEMENT; MODEL-DRIVEN ENGINEERING;

FORMAL METHODS;

EID: 34249986095     PISSN: 16191366     EISSN: 16191374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10270-006-0025-9     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (45)

1. Astels, D. Refactoring with UML. In: Proceedings of the International Conference eXtreme Programming and Flexible Processes in Software Engineering, pp. 67-70, (2002)
2. Baader F., McGuinness D., Nardi D., Patel-Schneider P. (2003) The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
3. Boger, M., Sturm, T., Fragemann, P. Refactoring browser for UML. In: Proceedings of the International Conference eXtreme Programming and Flexible Processes in Software Engineering, pp. 77-81, (2002)
4. Bunse, C., Atkinson, C. The normal object form: Bridging the gap from models to code. In Proc. Int'l Conf. UML'99, vol. 1723, pp. 691-705. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1999)
5. Calí, A., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M. A formal framework for reasoning on UML class diagrams. In: Foundations of Intelligent Systems: 13th International Symposium, vol. 2366 of LNCS, pp. 503. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2002)
6. Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M. 2atas make dls easy. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics, vol. 53 of CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings, pp. 107-118 (2002)
7. Clarke E.M., Grumberg O., Peled D.A. (1999) Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge
8. Davies J., Crichton C. (2002). Concurrency and refinement in the UML. In: Derrick J., Boiten E., Woodcock J., von Wright J. (eds). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 70. Elsevier, Amsterdam
9. D'Souza D., Wills A. (1998) Objects, Components and Frameworks with UML: the Catalysis Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading
10. Ebert, J., Engels, G. Specialization of object life cycle definitions. Fachbericht Informatik 19/95, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Fachbereich Informatik, Koblenz, (1995)
11. Emmerich W., Finkelstein A., Antonelli S., Armitage S., Stevens R. (1999) Managing standards compliance. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25(6): 836-851
12. Engels, G., Hausmann, J., Heckel, R., Sauer, S. Testing the consistency of dynamic UML diagrams. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference Integrated Design and Process Technology (IDPT 2002), June 2002
13. Engels, G., Heckel, R., Küster, J.M., Groenewegen, L. Consistency-preserving model evolution through transformations. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference UML 2002, vol. 2460 of LNCS, pp. 212-226. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2002)
14. Finkelstein, A., Gabbay, D.M., Hunter, A., Kramer, J., Nuseibeh, B. Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications. In: European Software Engineering Conference, vol. 717 of LNCS, pp. 84-99. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1993)
15. Gentleware. Poseidon, http://www.gentleware.com/, 18 March 2004
16. Haarslev, V., Möller, R. RACER system description. In: Proceedings of the International'l Joint Conference Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001), vol. 2083 of LNCS, pp. 701-706. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2001)
17. Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., Tobies, S. Practical reasoning for expressive description logics. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR'99), volume 1705 of LNAI, pp. 161-180. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1999)
18. Jürjens, J. Formal Semantics for Interacting UML subsystems. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems (FMOODS 2002), pp. 29-44. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)
19. Latella D., Majzik I., Massink M. (1999) Automatic verification of a behavioural subset of UML statechart diagrams using the SPIN model-checker. Formal Aspects Comput. 11(6): 637-664
20. Liskov, B. Data abstraction and hierarchy. SIGPLAN Notices 23 (5), 17-34 (1987). OOPSLA '87 Keynote Speech
21. Lutz, C., Sattler, U. Mary likes all cats. In: Baader, F., Sattler, U. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics, vol. 33 of CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings, pp. 213-225, 2000
22. Mens, T., Demeyer, S., Janssens, D. Formalising behaviour preserving program transformations. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Graph Transformation, vol. 2505 of LNCS, pp. 286-301. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2002)
23. Meyer B. (1997) Object-Oriented Software Construction, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood cliffs
24. Nissen H., Jeusfeld M., Jarke M., Zemanek G., Guber H. (1996) Managing multiple requirements perspectives with metamodels, pp. 37-47. IEEE Software, Washigton DC
25. Nuseibeh B., Kramer J., Finkelstein A. (1994) A framework for expressing the relationship between multiple views in requirements specification. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20(10): 760-773
26. Object Management Group. UML 2.0 Object Constraint Language Final Adopted Specification. ptc/03-10-14, January 2005
27. Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language 2.0 Superstructure Draft Adopted Specification. ptc/03-08-02, January 2005
28. Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language Version 1.5. formal/ 2003-03-01, January 2005
29. Porres, I. Model refactorings as rule-based update transformations. In: Proceedings of the International Conference UML 2003, vol. 2863 of LNCS, pp. 159. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2003
30. Rasch, G., Wehrheim, H. Checking consistency in UML diagrams: Classes and state machines. In: Formal Methods for Open Object-based Distributed Systems, vol. 2884 of LNCS, pp. 229-243. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2003)
31. Schäfer T., Knapp A., Merz S. Model checking UML state machines and collaborations. Electronic Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 55 (3) (2001)
32. Schrefl M., Stumptner M. (2002) Behavior consistent specialization of object life cycles. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Method. 11(1): 92-148
33. Sendall S., Kozaczynski W. (2003). Model transformation: The heart and soul of model-driven software development. IEEE Softw. 20(5): 42-45 Special Issue on Model-Driven Software Development
34. Shen, W., Lu, Y., Low, W.L. Extending the UML metamodel to support software refinement. In: Consistency Problems in UML-based software development II: Workshop Materials, number 2003:06, 2003. Available at http://www.ipd.bth.se/consistencyUML/ Consistency_Problems_in_UML_II.pdf, October 2003
35. Simmonds, J., Bastarrica, M.C. Description logics for consistency checking of architectural features in UML 2.0 models. DCC Technical Report TR/DCC-2005-1, Departamento de Ciencias de la Computacion, Santiago, Chile, 2005
36. Simmonds J., Van Der Straeten R., Jonckers V. (2004) Maintaining consistency between uml models using description logic. Série L'objet - logiciel, base de données, réseaux 10(2-3): 231-244
37. Spanoudakis G., Zisman A. (2001) Inconsistency Management in Software Engineering: Survey and Open Research Issues, vol. 1, pp. 329-380. World Scientific Pub. Co., Singapore
38. Stevens P., Tenzer J. (2003). Modelling recursive calls with UML state diagrams. In: Pezzé M. (eds). Proceedings of the Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2003), vol. 2621 of LNCS, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 135-149
39. Stumptner, M., Schrefl, M. Behavior Consistent Inheritance in UML. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference Conceptual Modeling (ER 2000), vol. 1920 of LNCS, pp. 527-542. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2000)
40. Sunyé, G., Pollet, D., LeTraon, Y., Jézéquel, J.-M. Refactoring UML Models. In: Proceedings of the International Conference UML 2001, vol. 2185 of LNCS, pp. 134-138. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2001)
41. van der Aalst, W. Inheritance of dynamic behaviour in UML. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International'l Workshop on Modelling of Objects, Components and Agents (MOCA'02), pp. 105-120, August 2002
42. Van Der Straeten, R. Inconsistency Management in Model-driven Engineering. An Approach using Description Logics. PhD Thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
43. Van Der Straeten, R., Mens, T., Simmonds, J., Jonckers, V. Using description logic to maintain consistency between UML models. In: Proceedings of the International Conference UML 2003, vol. 2863 of LNCS, pp. 326-340. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2003)
44. Van Der Straeten, R., Simmonds, J., Mens, T. Detecting inconsistencies between UML models using description logic. In: Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Franconi, E. (eds.) Description Logics, vol. 81 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2003)
45. Whittle, J. Transformations and software modeling languages: Automating transformations in UML. In: Proceedings of the International Conference UML 2002, vol. 2460 of LNCS, pp. 227-242. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2002)