UML vs. classical vs. rhapsody statecharts: Not all models are created equal

Software and Systems Modeling

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 415-435

  Crane, Michelle L ^a   Dingel, Juergen ^a  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLOWCHARTING; SEMANTICS; SYNTACTICS; UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

RHAPSODY; STATE MACHINES; STATECHART FORMALISMS;

SOCIAL SCIENCES COMPUTING;

EID: 36549048472     PISSN: 16191366     EISSN: 16191374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10270-006-0042-8     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Alur R., Benedikt M., Etessami K., Godefroid P., Reps T. and Yannakakis M. (2005). Analysis of recursive state machines. ACM Trans. Program. Languages Systems 27(4): 786-818
2. Berry G. and Gonthier G. (1992). The ESTEREL synchronous programming language: Design, semantics, implementation. Sci. Comput. Program. 19: 87-152
3. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley (1999)
4. Crane, M.L., Dingel, J.: On the semantics of UML state machines: Categorization and comparison. Technical Report 2005-501, School of Computing, Queen's University (2005)
5. Damm, W., Josko, B., Hungar, H., Pnueli A.: A compositional real-time semantics of STATEMATE designs. In: Compositionality: The Significant Difference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1536, pp. 186-238. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)
6. Douglass, B.P.: Real Time UML. Object Technology Series. 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley (2004)
7. Gogolla, M., PariAi-Presicce F.: State diagrams in UML: a formal semantics using graph transformations. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Precise Semantics for Modelling Techniques (PSMT'98), pp. 55-72. Technische Universität München, TUM-I9803 (1998)
8. Harel D. (1987). Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comput. Program. 8(3): 231-274
9. Harel, D.: Some thoughts on statecharts, 13 years later. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV'97), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1254, pp. 226-231. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
10. Harel D. and Gery E. (1997). Executable object modeling with statecharts. Computer 30(7): 31-42
11. Harel, D., Kugler H.: The R hapsody semantics of statecharts (on, on the executable core of the UML) (preliminary version). In: SoftSpez Final Report, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3147, pp. 325-354. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
12. Harel D. and Naamad A. (1996). The STATEMATE semantics of statecharts. ACM Trans. Soft. Eng. Methodol. (TOSEM) 5(4): 293-333
13. Harel, D., Pnueli, A., Schmidt, J.P., Sherman R.: On the formal semantics of statecharts. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 54-64. Computer Society Press of the IEEE (1987)
14. Harel, D., Politi M.: Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach. McGraw-Hill (1998)
15. Howe, D. (ed.): The free on-line dictionary of computing. http://www.foldoc.org/
16. Huizing C. and de Roever W.P. (1991). Introduction to design choices in the semantics of statecharts. Inform. Process. Lett. 37(4): 205-213
17. Huizing, C., Gerth, R., de Roever, W.P.: Modelling Statecharts behaviour in a fully abstract way. In: CAAP '88: 13th Colloquium on Trees in Algebra and Programming, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 299, pp. 271-294. Springer, Heidelberg (1988)
18. I-Logix: Rhapsody 6.2 User Guide
19. I-Logix: Rhapsody. http://www.ilogix.com/sublevel.aspx?id=53
20. I-Logix: Statemate. http://www.ilogix.com/sublevel.aspx?id=74
21. Lüttgen, G., von der Beeck, M., Cleaveland, R.: A compositional approach to statecharts semantics. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 120-129. ACM Press (2000)
22. Maggiolo-Schettini, A., Peron, A.: A graph rewriting framework for statecharts semantics. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Graph Grammars (GRAGRA), Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1996, pp. 107-121. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)
23. Maggiolo-Schettini A., Peron A. and Tini S. (2003). A comparison of statecharts step semantics. Theor. Comput. Sci. 290(1): 465-498
24. Mikk, E.: Semantics and Verification of Statecharts. PhD thesis, Christian-Albrechts University of Kiel, 2000. Bericht Nr. 2011
25. Mikk, E., Lakhnech, Y., Siegel M.: Hierarchical automata as model for statecharts. In: Proceedings of the Asian Computing Science Conference (ASIAN '97), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1345, pp. 181-196. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
26. OMG. UML specification. Document formal/03-03-01, Object Management Group, Version 1.5 (2003)
27. OMG. UML 2.0 infrastructure specification. Document ptc/03-09-15, Object Management Group (2004)
28. OMG. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure version 2.0. Document formal/05-07-04, Object Management Group (2005)
29. Pnueli, A., Shalev M.: What is in a step: On the semantics of statecharts. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Software (TACS'91), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 526, pp. 244-264. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)
30. Selic B. (2003). The pragmatics of model-driven development. IEEE Softw. 20(5): 19-25
31. Selic B.: Personal Communication (Email dated 4 Mar 05) (2005)
32. UML 2 Semantics Project. http://www.cs.queensu.ca/Estl/internal/uml2
33. Uselton, A.C., Smolka, S.A.: A compositional semantics for statecharts using labeled transition systems. In: Proceedings of Concurrency Theory (CONCUR '94), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 836, pp. 2-17. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)
34. von der Beeck, M.: A comparison of statecharts variants. In: Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems (FTRTFT'94), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 863, pp. 128-148. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)
35. von der Beeck M. (2002). A structured operational semantics for UML-statecharts. Softw. Systems Modeling 1(2): 130-141