Verifying UML/OCL models using boolean satisfiability

Proceedings -Design, Automation and Test in Europe, DATE

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 1341-1344

  Soeken, Mathias ^a   Wille, Robert ^a   Kuhlmann, Mirco ^a   Gogolla, Martin ^a   Drechsler, Rolf ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HARDWARE-SOFTWARE CODESIGN; UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

BOOLEAN SATISFIABILITY; COMPLEX SOFTWARE SYSTEMS; SAT SOLVERS; SYSTEM STATE; TIME TO MARKET; UML MODEL; VERIFICATION PROBLEMS; VERIFICATION TASK;

FORMAL LOGIC;

EID: 77953100008     PISSN: 15301591     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/date.2010.5457017     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. K. Anastasakis, B. Bordbar, G. Georg, and I. Ray. UML2Alloy: A challenging model transformation. In Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pages 436-450. 2007.
2. D. Berardi, D. Calvanese, and G. De Giacomo. Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artif. Intell., 168(1):70-118, 2005.
3. A. D. Brucker and B. Wolff. The HOL-OCL book. Technical Report 525, ETH Zurich, 2006.
4. J. Cabot, R. Clarisó, and D. Riera. Verification of UML/OCL class diagrams using constraint programming. In ICSTW '08: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation Workshop, pages 73-80, Washington, DC, USA, 2008. IEEE Computer Society.
5. N. Eén and N. Sörensson. An extensible SAT solver. In SAT 2003, pages 502-518, 2003.
6. M. Ganai and A. Gupta. SAT-Based Scalable Formal Verification Solutions. Springer, 2007.
7. M. Gogolla, M. Kuhlmann, and L. Hamann. Consistency, independence and consequences in UML and OCL models. In TAP 2009, pages 90-104, 2009.
8. D. Jackson. Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. The MIT Press, 2006.
9. M. Kyas, H. Fecher, F. S. de Boer, J. Jacob, J. Hooman, M. van der Zwaag, T. Arons, and H. Kugler. Formalizing UML models and OCL constraints in PVS. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 115:39-47, 2005.
10. T. Mancini. Finite satisfiability of UML class diagrams by constraint programming. In Description Logics, 2004.
11. G. Martin and W. Müller. UML for SOC Design. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA, 2005.
12. A. Queralt and E. Teniente. Reasoning on UML class diagrams with OCL constraints. In ER, pages 497-512, 2006.
13. J. Rumbaugh, I. Jacobson, and G. Booch. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, Massachusetts, second edition, 2004.
14. R. Van Der Straeten, T. Mens, J. Simmonds, and V. Jonckers. Using description logic to maintain consistency between UML models. In UML, pages 326-340, 2003.
15. G. Tseitin. On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. In Studies in Constructive Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, Part 2, pages 115-125, 1968.
16. Y. Vanderperren, W. Mueller, and W. Dehaene. UML for electronic systems design: a comprehensive overview. Design Automation for Embedded Systems, 12(4):261-292, 2008.