Specifying behavioral semantics of UML diagrams through graph transformations

Journal of Systems and Software

Volumn 82, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 292-306

  Kong, Jun ^a   Zhang, Kang ^b   Dong, Jing ^b   Xu, Dianxiang ^a  

^a NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Behavioral semantics; Graph grammars; Graph transformation; Object oriented systems; UML; Visual languages; Visual programming

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING; CONTEXT SENSITIVE GRAMMARS; FORMAL LANGUAGES; FORMAL LOGIC; FORMAL METHODS; FOURIER TRANSFORMS; GRAPH THEORY; GRAPHIC METHODS; INFORMATION THEORY; LINGUISTICS; PROGRAMMING THEORY; QUERY LANGUAGES; SEMANTICS; UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

BEHAVIORAL SEMANTICS; GRAPH GRAMMARS; GRAPH TRANSFORMATION; OBJECT-ORIENTED SYSTEMS; UML; VISUAL LANGUAGES; VISUAL PROGRAMMING;

OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING;

EID: 58549119738     PISSN: 01641212     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2008.06.030     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Baresi, L., Pezzè, M., 2001. On formalizing UML with high-level Petri nets. In: Proceedings of the Concurrent Object-Oriented Programming and Petri Nets. LNCS 2001, pp. 271-300.
2. Baresi, L., Heckel, R., Thöne, S., Varró, D., 2003. Modeling and validation of service-oriented architectures: application vs. style. In: Proceedings of the ESEC/FSE'03, pp. 68-77.
3. Baresi L., and Pezzè M. Formal interpreters for diagram notations. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 14 1 (2005) 42-84
4. von der Beeck M. A structured operational semantics for UML-statecharts. Software and Systems Modeling 1 2 (2002) 130-141
5. Blostein, D., Fahmy, H., Grbavec, A., 1994. Issues in the practical use of graph rewriting. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Graph Grammars and their Application to Computer Science. LNCS 1073, pp. 38-55.
6. Bolognesi, T., Brinksma, E., 1989. Introduction to the ISO specification language LOTOS. In: Eijk, P.H.J.V., Vissers, C.A., Diaz, M. (Eds.), The Formal Description Technique LOTOS, pp. 23-73.
7. Börger, E., Cavarra, A., Riccobene, E., 2000. Modeling the dynamics of UML state machines. In: Proceedings of the ASM 2000. LNCS 1912, pp. 223-241.
8. Bruel, J.M., France, R., 1998. Transforming UML models to formal specifications. In: Proceedings OOPSLA'98 Workshop on Formalizing UML: Why? How?
9. Burmester S., Giese H., Niere J., Tichy M., Wadsack J.P., Wagner R., Wendehals L., and Zündorf A. Tool integration at the meta-model level: the Fujaba approach. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 6 3 (2004) 203-218
10. Burnett, M.M., 2008. Visual language research bibliography. (up to date).
11. Cheng B.H.C., and Wang E.Y. Formalizing and integrating the dynamic model for object-oriented modeling. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28 8 (2002) 747-762
12. Costagliola G., De Lucia A., Orefice S., and Tortora G. A parsing methodology for the implementation of visual systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 23 12 (1997) 777-799
13. Costagliola, G., Polese, G., 2000. Extended positional grammars In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, pp. 103-110.
14. Costagliola G., Deufemia V., and Polese G. A framework for modeling and implementing visual notations with applications to software engineering. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (2004) 431-487
15. Cox P.T., and Smedley T. Building environments for visual programming of robots by demonstration. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 11 5 (2000) 549-571
16. Crane, M.L., Dingel, J., 2005. On the semantics of UML state machines: categorization and comparison. Technical report, Queen's University.
17. Engels, G., Hausmann, J.H., Heckel, R., Sauer, S., 2000. Dynamic meta modeling: a graphical approach to the operational semantics of behavioral diagrams in UML. In: Proceedings of the UML 2000. LNCS 1939. pp. 323-337.
18. Engels, G., Heckel, R., Küster, J.M., 2001. Rule-based specification of behavioral consistency based on the UML meta model. In: Proceedings of the UML 2001, pp. 272-286.
19. Ermel C., Rudolf M., and Taentzer G. The AGG approach: language and environment. Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation: Applications, Languages and Tools vol. 2 (1999) 551-604
20. Ermel, C., Hülscher, K., Kuske, S., Ziemann, P., 2005. Animated simulation of integrated UML behavioral models based on graph transformation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, pp. 125-133.
21. Evans, A., France, R., Grant, E., 1999. Towards formal reasoning with UML models. In: Proceedings of the OOPSLA'99 Workshop on Behavioral Semantics.
22. Fischer, T., Niere, J., Torunski, L., Zündorf, A., 1998. Story diagrams: a new graph rewrite language based on the unified modeling language and java. In: Proceedings of the Theory and Application to Graph Transformations. LNCS 1764, pp. 296-309.
23. Garlan D., Cheng S.W., and Kompanek A.J. Reconciling the needs of architectural description with object-modeling notations. Science of Computer Programming 44 (2002) 23-49
24. Geiger, L., Zündorf, A., 2004. Statechart modeling with Fujaba. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Graph-Based Tools.
25. Gogolla, M., Presicce, F.P., 1998. State diagrams in UML: a formal semantics using graph transformations. In: Proceedings of the ICSE'98 Workshop Precise Semantics of Modeling Techniques. Technical Report TUM-I9803, pp. 55-72.
26. Gogolla, M., Ziemann, P., Kuske, S., 2002. Towards an integrated graph based semantics for UML. In: Proceedings of the Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques.
27. Harel D., and Namaad A. The STATEMATE semantics of statecharts. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 5 4 (1996) 293-333
28. Hoare C.A.R. Communicating sequential processes. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science (1985), Prentice-Hall International, New Jersey
29. Hölscher K., Ziemann P., and Gogolla M. On translating UML models into graph transformation systems. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 17 1 (2006) 78-105
30. Hu Z., and Shatz S.M. Explicit modeling of semantics associated with composite states in UML statecharts. Journal of Automated Software Engineering 13 4 (2006) 423-467
31. Jin Y., Esser R., and Janneck J.W. A method for describing the syntax and semantics of UML statecharts. Journal of Software and Systems Modeling 3 (2004) 150-163
32. Karsai G., Sztipanovits J., Ledeczi A., and Bapty T. Model-integrated development of embedded software. Proceedings of the IEEE 91 1 (2003) 145-164
33. Kong, J., Song, G.L., Dong, J., 2005. Specifying behavioral semantics through graph transformation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE VL/HCC'05 Workshop on Visual Modeling for Software Intensive Systems (VMSIS), pp. 51-58.
34. Kong J., Zhang K., and Zeng X.Q. Spatial graph grammar for graphic user interfaces. ACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction 13 2 (2006) 268-307
35. Kuske, S., 2001. A formal semantics of UML state machines based on structured graph transformation. In: Proceedings of the UML 2001, pp. 241-256.
36. Kuske, S., Gogolla, M., Kollmann, R., Kreowski, H.J., 2002. An integrated semantics for UML class, object and state diagrams based on graph transformation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods. LNCS 2335, pp. 11-28.
37. Kwon, G., 2000. Rewrite rules and operational semantics for model checking UML statecharts. In: Proceedings of the UML 2000, pp. 528-540.
38. Latella, D., Majzik, I., Massink, M., 1999. Towards a formal operational semantics of UML statechart diagrams. In: Proceedings of the IFIP TC6/WG6.1 3rd International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Oriented Distributed Systems, pp. 331-347.
39. Lilius, J., Paltor, I.P., 1999. Formalizing UML state machines for model checking. In: Proceedings UML'99. LNCS 1723, pp. 430-444.
40. Maggiolo-Schettini, A., Peron, A., 1994. Semantics of full statecharts based on graph rewriting. In: Proceedings of the Graph Transformation in Computer Science. LNCS 776. pp. 265-279.
41. Maggiolo-Schettini, A., Peron, A., 1996. A graph rewriting framework for statecharts semantics. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Graph Grammars and their Application to Computer Science. LNCS 1073. pp. 107-121.
42. McMillan, K.L., 1992. Symbolic model checking: an approach to the state explosion problem. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
43. McUmber, W.E., Cheng, B.H.C., 2001. A general framework for formalizing UML with formal languages. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 433-442.
44. Medvidovic N., and Taylor R.N. A classification and comparison framework for software architecture description languages. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26 1 (2000) 70-93
45. Medvidovic N., Rosenblum D.S., Redmiles D.F., and Robbins J.E. Modeling software architectures in the unified modeling language. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 11 1 (2002) 2-57
46. Mellow S.J., and Balcer M.J. Executable UML - A Foundation for Model-Driven Architecture (2002), Addison-Wesley, New York
47. Métayer D.L. Describing software architecture styles using graph grammars. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24 7 (1998) 521-533
48. Object Management Group, 2005. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure. Version 2.0.
49. Raistrick C., Francis P., and Wright J. Model Driven Architecture with Executable UML (2004), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
50. Rekers J., and Schürr A. Defining and parsing visual languages with layered graph grammars. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 8 1 (1997) 27-55
51. Reggio, G., Astesiano, E., Choppy, C., Hussmann, H., 2000. Analyzing UML active classes and associated state machines - a lightweight formal approach. Proceedings of the FASE 2000. LNCS 1783. pp. 127-146.
52. In: Rozenberg G. (Ed). Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation: Foundations vol. 1 (1997), World Scientific, Singapore
53. Rumbaugh J., Blaha M., Premerlani W., Eddy F., and Lorensen W. Object-oriented modeling and design (1991), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
54. Rumbaugh J., Jacobson I., and Booch G. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. second ed. (2005), Addison-Wesley, New York
55. Schattkowsky, T., Müller, W., 2004. Model-based design of embedded systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-time Distributed Computing. pp. 113-128.
56. Schattkowsky, T., Müller, W., 2005. Transformation of UML state machines for direct execution. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, pp. 117-124.
57. Schürr, A., Winter, A., Zündorf, A., 1995. Graph grammar engineering with PROGRES. In: Proceedings ESEC'95. LNCS 989. pp. 219-234.
58. Starr L. Executable UML: How to Build Class Models (2001), Prentice-Hall, New Jersey
59. Taentzer, G., Geodicke, M., Meyer, T., 1998. Dynamic change management by distributed graph transformation: towards configurable distributed systems. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop Theory and Application of Graph Transformations. LNCS 1764. pp. 179-193.
60. Varró, D., 2002. A formal semantics of UML statecharts by model transition systems. In: Proceedings ICGT 2002. LNCS 2505. pp. 378-392.
61. Zhang D.Q., Zhang K., and Cao J. A context-sensitive graph grammar formalism for the specification of visual languages. Computer Journal 44 3 (2001) 187-200
62. Zhang K., Zhang D.-Q., and Cao J. Design, construction, and application of a generic visual language generation environment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27 4 (2001) 289-307
63. Zhao, Y., Fan, Y., Bai, X., Wang, Y., Cai, H., Ding, W., 2004. Towards formal verification of UML diagrams based on graph transformation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce Technology for Dynamic E-Business, pp. 180-187.
64. Ziemann, P., Hölscher, K., Gogolla, M., 2004a. From UML models to graph transformation systems. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Visual Languages and Formal Methods. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS). pp. 17-33.
65. Ziemann, P., Hölscher, K., Gogolla, M., 2004b. Coherently explaining UML statechart and collaboration diagrams by graph transformations. In: Proceedings of the Brazilian Symposium on Formal Methods. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS). pp. 263-280.