Considerations and Rationale for a UML System Model

UML 2 Semantics and Applications

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 43-60

  Broy, Manfred ^a   Cengarle, María Victoria ^a   Grönniger, Hans ^b   Rumpe, Bernhard ^b  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Mathematics behind system model; System model and UML semantics definition; Usage scenarios of system model based UML semantics

Indexed keywords

EID: 78349297037     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9780470522622.ch3     Document Type: Chapter

References (45)

1. R. Breu, R. Grosu, F. Huber, B. Rumpe, and W. Schwerin. Systems, views and models of UML. In Proceedings of the Unified Modeling Language: Technical Aspects and Applications. Physica Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 1998.
2. R. Breu, U. Hinkel, C. Hofmann, C. Klein, B. Paech, B. Rumpe, and V. Thurner. Towards a formalization of the unified modeling language. In Proceedings of ECOOP'97-Object Oriented Programming, 11th European Conference. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1241. Springer-Verlag, NewYork, 1997.
3. M. Broy, M. V. Cengarle, H. Grönniger, and B. Rumpe. Modular Description of a Comprehensive Semantics Model for the UML (Version 2.0). Technical Report 2008-06. Carl-Friedrich-Gauß-Fakultät, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, 2008.
4. M. Broy, M.V. Cengarle, and B. Rumpe. Semantics ofUML-Towards a System Model for UML: The Structural Data Model. Technical Report TUM-I0612. Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany, June 2006.
5. M. Broy, M. V. Cengarle, and B. Rumpe. Semantics of UML-Towards a System Model for UML: The Control Model. Technical Report TUM-I0710. Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany, Feb. 2007.
6. M. Broy, M.V. Cengarle, and B. Rumpe. Semantics ofUML-Towards a System Model for UML: The State Machine Model. Technical Report TUM-I0711. Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany, Feb. 2007.
7. J.-M. Bruel and R. B. France. Transforming UML models to formal specifications. In P.-A. Muller and J. Bézivin, eds., International Conference on the Unified Modelling Language: Beyond the Notation (UML'98, Proceedings). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1618. Springer-Verlag, NewYork, 1998.
8. M. Cadoli, D. Calvanese, G.DeGiacomo, and T. Mancini. Finite model reasoning onUML class diagrams via constraint programming. In R. Basili and M. T. Pazienza, eds., AI*IA. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4733, pp. 36-47. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2007.
9. M.V. Cengarle, J. Dingel, H. Grönniger, and B. Rumpe. System-model-based simulation of UML models. In Proceedings of the Nordic Workshop on Model Driven Engineering (NW-MODE 2007), 2007.
10. M. V. Cengarle, H. Grönniger, and B. Rumpe. System Model Semantics of Class Diagrams. Technical Report 2008-04. Carl-Friedrich-Gauß-Fakultät, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, 2008.
11. M. V. Cengarle, H. Grönniger, and B. Rumpe. System Model Semantics of Statecharts. Technical Report 2008-04. Carl-Friedrich-Gauß-Fakultät, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Gernmay, 2008.
12. M. V. Cengarle and A. Knapp. UML 2.0 interactions: semantics and refinement. In J. Jürjens, E. B. Fernandez, R. France, and B. Rumpe, eds., Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Critical Systems Development with UML (CSDUML'04). Technical Report TUM-I0415. Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany, 2004.
13. M. L. Crane and J. Dingel. Towards a formal account of a foundational subset for executable UML models. In MoDELS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5301, pp. 675-689. Springer-Verlag, NewYork, 2008.
14. W. Damm, B. Josko, A. Pnueli, and A.Votintseva. UnderstandingUML:a formal semantics of concurrency and communication in real-time UML. In F. de Boer, M. Bonsangue, S. Graf, andW.-P. de Roever, eds., Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Formal Methods for Components and Objects (FMCO2002). Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceTutorials, vol. 2852, pp. 70-98. Springer-Verlag, NewYork, 2003.
15. G. Engels, C. Soltenborn, and H. Wehrheim. Analysis of UML activities using dynamic meta modeling. In M. M. Bonsangue and E. B. Johnsen, eds., FMOODS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4468, pp. 76-90. Springer-Verlag, NewYork, 2007.
16. A. Evans, K. Lano, R. France, and B. Rumpe. Meta-modeling semantics of UML. In Proceedings of Behavioral Specifications of Businesses and Systems. Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA, 1999.
17. H. Fecher, M. Kyas, W. P. de Roever, and F. S. de Boer. Compositional operational semantics of a UML-kernel-model language. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 156(1):79-96, 2006.
18. I. Feinerer and G. Salzer. Consistency and minimality of UML class specifications with multiplicities and uniqueness constraints. In TASE, pp. 411-420. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 2007.
19. R. France, A. Evans, K. Lano, and B. Rumpe. Developing the UML as a formal modelling notation. In Proceedings of the Unified Modeling Language: UML'98 Beyond the Notation. Mulhouse. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1618, pp. 336-348, Springer-Verlag, NewYork, 1998.
20. R. Grosu, C. Klein, and B. Rumpe. Enhancing the SysLab System Model with State. Technical Report TUM-I9631. Technische Univerität München, Munich, Germany, 1996.
21. D. Harel and B. Rumpe. Meaningful modeling: What's the semantics of "semantics"? Computer, 37(10):64-72, 2004.
22. O. Haugen, K. E. Husa, R. K. Runde, and K. Stoelen. STAIRS towards formal design with sequence diagrams. SoSyM, 4(4):355-357, 2005.
23. C. Herrmann, H. Krahn, B. Rumpe, M. Schindler, and S. Völkel. An algebraic view on the semantics of model composition. In D. H. Akehurst, R. Vogel, and R. F. Paige, eds., Model Driven Architecture: Foundations and Applications (ECMDA-FA), Haifa, Israel, June 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4530, pp. 99-113. Springer-Verlag, NewYork, 2007.
24. C. Klein, B. Rumpe, and M. Broy. A stream-based mathematical model for distributed information processing systems: the SysLab system model. In E. Naijm and J.-B. Stefani, eds., Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems (FMOODS'96). Chapman & Hall, London, 1996.
25. H. Krahn, B. Rumpe, and S. Völkel. MontiCore: modular development of textual domain specific languages. In Proceedings of Tools Europe, 2008.
26. J. Küster, J. Koehler, J. Novatnack, and K. Ryndina. A Classification of UML2 Activity Diagrams. IBM ZRL Technical Report 3673, 2006.
27. S. Kuske, M. Gogolla, R. Kollmann, and H.-J. Kreowski. 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 (IFM'02), pp. 11-28, London. Springer-Verlag, NewYork, 2002.
28. K. Lano. A compositional semantics of UML-RSDS. SoSyM, 8(1): 85-116, 2009.
29. X. Li. A characterization of UML diagrams and their consistency. In ICECCS, pp. 67-76. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 2006.
30. A. Maraee and M. Balaban. Efficient reasoning about finite satisfiability of UML class diagrams with constrained generalization sets. In D. H. Akehurst, R. Vogel, and R. F. Paige, eds., ECMDA-FA. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4530, pp. 17-31. Springer-Verlag, NewYork, 2007.
31. B. Meyer. Object-Oriented Software Construction, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
32. T. Nipkow, L.C. Paulson, and M. Wenzel. Isabelle/HOL: A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. Springer-Verlag, NewYork, 2002.
33. OMG. Unified modeling language: infrastructure version 2.1.2. http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/07-11-04.pdf.
34. OMG. Unified modeling language: superstructure version 2.1.2. http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/07-11-02.pdf.
35. G. O'Keefe. Dynamic logic semantics forUMLconsistency. In A. Rensink and J.Warmer, eds., ECMDA-FA. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4066, pp. 113-127. Springer-Verlag, NewYork, 2006.
36. B. Rumpe. Formale Methodik des Entwurfs verteilter objektorientierter Systeme. Herbert UtzVerlagWissenschaft, 1996. Ph.D. dissertation, Technische Universität München. Munich, Germany.
37. S. Sarstedt and W. Guttmann. An ASM semantics of token flow in UML 2 activity diagrams. In I. Virbitskaite and A. Voronkov, eds., Ershov Memorial Conference. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4378, pp. 349-362. Springer-Verlag, NewYork, 2006.
38. K. Satoh, K. Kaneiwa, and T. Uno. Contradiction finding and minimal recovery for UML class diagrams. In ASE, pp. 277-280. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 2006.
39. C. Snook and M. Butler. UML-B: formal modeling and design aided by UML. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering Methodology, 15(1):92-122, 2006.
40. T. Stauner, B. Rumpe, and P. Scholz. Hybrid System Model. Technical Report TUM-I9903. Technische Univerität München, Munich, Germany, 1999.
41. H. Störrle and J. H. Hausmann. Towards a formal semantics of UML 2.0 activities. In P. Liggesmeyer, K. Pohl, and M. Goedicke, eds., Software Engineering. Lecture Notes in Informatics, vol. 64, pp. 117-128. Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn, Germany, 2005.
42. A. Taleghani and J. M. Atlee. Semantic variations among UML state machines. In MoDELS, pp. 245-259, 2006.
43. M. von der Beeck. A structured operational semantics for UML-statecharts. Software and Systems Modeling, 1(2):130-141, 2002.
44. G.Winskel. The Formal Semantics of Programming Languages. Foundations of Computer Science Series. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993.
45. X. Zhao, Q. Long, and Z. Qiu. Model checking dynamic UML consistency. In Z. Liu and J. He, eds., ICFEM. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4260, pp. 440-459. Springer-Verlag, NewYork, 2006.