Assert and negate revisited: Modal semantics for UML sequence diagrams

Software and Systems Modeling

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 237-252

  Harel, David ^a   Maoz, Shahar ^a  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

Author keywords

Formal semantics; Livesequence charts; Sequence diagrams; Standardization; UML Interactions

Indexed keywords

SEMANTIC WEB; SPECIFICATION LANGUAGES; VERIFICATION;

FORMAL SEMANTICS; LIVE SEQUENCE CHARTS; MESSAGE SEQUENCE CHARTS; MODAL SEQUENCE DIAGRAMS;

UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

EID: 43449139187     PISSN: 16191366     EISSN: 16191374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10270-007-0054-z     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Bontemps, Y., Heymans, P.: Turning high-level sequence charts into automata. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on scenarios and state machines (SCESM'02), at the 24th international conference on software engineering (ICSE'02) (2002)
2. Booch G., Rumbaugh J. and Jacobson I. (2005). The unified modeling language user guide. Addison Wesley, Reading
3. Bunker A., Gopalakrishnan G. and Slind K. (2005). Live sequence charts applied to hardware requirements specification and verification: A VCI bus interface model. Software Tools Technol. Trans. 7(4): 341-350
4. Cavarra A. and Filipe J.K. (2005). Combining sequence diagrams and OCL for liveness. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 115: 19-38
5. Cengarle, M., KnSpp, A.: UML 2.0 Interactions: semantics and refinement. In: Jürjens, J., Fernández, E.B., France, R., Rumpe, B. (eds.) 3rd International workshop on critical systems development with UML (CSDUML'04), pp. 85-99 (2004)
6. Combes, P., Harel, D., Kugler, H.: Modeling and verification of a telecommunication application using live sequence charts and the play-engine tool, LNCS, vol. 3707, pp. 414-428 (2005)
7. Bamm, W., Harel, D.: LSCs: breathing life into message sequence charts. J. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 19 (1), 45-80 (2001). Preliminary version in: Ciancarini, P., Fantechi, A., Gorrieri, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd IFIP international conference on formal methods for open object-based distributed systems (FMOODS'99), pp. 293-312, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)
8. Damm W. and Westphal B. (2005). Live and let die: LSC-based verification of UML-models. Sci. Comput. Program. 55(1-3): 117-159
9. Fecher, H., Schönborn, J., Kyas, M., de Roever, W.P.: 29 New unclarities in the semantics of UML 2.0 state machines. In: Lau, K.K., Banach, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th international conference on formal engineering methods (ICFEM'05), LNCS, vol. 3785, pp. 52-65 (2005)
10. Gastin, P., Oddoux, D.: Fast LTL to Büchi automata translation. In: Berry, G., Comon, H., Finkel, A. (eds.) Proceedings 13th International Conference on computer aided verification (CAV'01), LNCS, vol. 2102, pp. 53-65. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
11. Grosu, R., Smolka, S.A.: Safety-liveness semantics for UML 2.0 sequence diagrams. In: 5th international conference on application of concurrency to system design (ACSD'05), pp. 6-14. IEEE Computer Society (2005)
12. Harel, D., Kleinbrot, A., Maoz, S.: S2A: A compiler for multi-modal UML sequence diagrams. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on fundamental approaches to software engineering (FASE'07), LNCS, vol. 4422, pp. 121-124, Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
13. Harel D. and Kugler H. (2002). Synthesizing state-based object systems from LSC specifications. Int. J. Foundations Comput. Sci. 13(1): 5-51
14. Harel, D., KuglGr, H., Pnueli, A.: Synthesis revisited: generating statechart models from scenario-based requirements. LNCS, vol. 3393, pp. 309-324 (2005)
15. Harel, D., Maoz, S.: AsMert and negate revisited: modal semantics for UML sequence diagrams. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on scenarios and state machines (SCESM'06), at the 28th international conference on software engineering (ICSE'06), pp. 13-20, ACM Press, New York (2006)
16. Harel, D., MSrelly R.: Come, let's play: scenario-based programming using LSCs and the play-engine. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
17. Haugen, Ø., Husa, K.E., Runde, R.K., Stølen, K.: STAIRS towards formal design with sequence diagrams. Software Syst. Model. (SoSyM) 4(4), 355-367 (2005)
18. ITU: International telecommunication union recommendation z.120: Message sequence charts. Tech. rep. (1996)
19. Klose, JO, Toben T., Westphal, B., Wittke, H.: Check it out: on the efficient formal verification of live sequence charts. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) Proceedings 18th international conference on computer aided verification (CAV'06), LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 219-233, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
20. Klose, J., Wittke, H.: An automata based interpretation of live sequence chart. In: Margaria, T., Yi, W. (eds.) Proceedings 7th international conference on tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems (TACAS'01), LNCS, vol. 2031. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
21. Knapp, A., Wuttke, J.: Model checking of UML 2.0 interactions. In: Houmb, S.H., Georg, G., France, R., Petriu, D.C., Jürjens, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the international workshop on critical systems development using modeling languages (CSDUML'06), pp. 52-67 (2006)
22. Kugler, H., Harel, D., Pnueli, A., Lu, Y., Bontemps, Y.: Temporal logic for scenario-based specifications. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems (TACAS'05), LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 445-460. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
23. Kupferman O. and Vardi M. (2001). Weak alternating automata are not that weak. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 2(3): 408-429
24. Kupferman O., Vardi M. and Wolper P. (2000). An automata-theoretic approach to branching-time model checking. J. ACM 47(2): 312-360
25. Lettrari, M., Klose, J.: Scenario-based monitoring and testing of real-time UML models. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML, LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 317-328. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
26. Maoz, S., Harel, D.: From multC-modal scenarios to code: compiling LSCs into AspectJ. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on foundations of software engineering (SIGSOFT'06/FSE-14), pp. 219-230. ACM Press, New York (2006)
27. Marelly, R., Harel, D., Kugler, H.: Multiple instances and symbolic variables in executable sequence charts. In: Proceedings of the international conference on object-oriented programming, languages, and applications (OOPSLA'02)
28. Miyano S. and Hayashi T. (1984). Alternating finite automata on ω-Words. Theor. Comp. Sci. 32: 321-330
29. Muller D.E., Saoudi A. and Schupp P.E. (1992). Alternating automata, the weak monadic theory of trees and its complexity. Theor. Comput. Sci. 97(2): 233-244
30. Runde R.K., Haugen Ø. and Stølen K. (2005). Refining UML interactions with underspecification and nondeterminism. Nordic J. Comput 12(2): 157-188
31. Schinz, I., Toben, T., Mrugalla, C., Westphal, B.: The rhapsody UML verification environment. In: Cuellar, J.R., Liu, Z. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on software engineering and formal methods (SEFM'04), Beijing, China, pp. 174-183. IEEE (2004)
32. Störrle, H.: Assert, negate and refinement in UML-2.0 interactions. In: Jürjens, J., Fernández, E.B., France, R., Rumpe, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on critical systems development with the UML (CSDUML'04), pp. 79-94 (2004)
33. Störrle, H.: Trace semantics of UML 2.0 interactions. Tech. rep., University of Munich (2004)
34. UML: Unified modeling language superstructure specification, v2.0, formal/05-07-04. OMG specification, OMG (August 2005)
35. UML: Unified modeling language testing profile, v1.0. OMG specification, OMG (July 2005)
36. Westphal, B.: LSC verification for UML models with unbounded creation and destruction. In: Cook, B., Stoller, S., Visser, W. (eds.) Proceedins workshop on software model checking (SoftMC'05), ENTCS, vol. 144, pp. 133-145. Elsevier, Dordrecht (2005)