Efficient analysis of pattern-based constraint specifications

Software and Systems Modeling

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 225-255

  Wahler, Michael ^a   Basin, David ^b   Brucker, Achim D ^c   Koehler, Jana ^d  

^a ABB CORPORATE RESEARCH   (Switzerland)

^b ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c SAP RESEARCH   (Germany)

^d IBM RESEARCH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Consistency; Constraints; OCL; Patterns; UML

Indexed keywords

CONSISTENCY; CONSTRAINTS; OCL; PATTERNS; UML;

HEURISTIC METHODS; SEMANTICS; SPECIFICATIONS; THEOREM PROVING;

MODEL CHECKING;

EID: 79451475370     PISSN: 16191366     EISSN: 16191374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10270-009-0123-6     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Ackermann, J., Turowski, K.: A library of OCL specification patterns to simplify behavioral specification of software components. In: Proceedings of Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4001, pp. 255-269 (2006).
2. Ahrendt W., Baar T., Beckert B., Bubel R., Giese M., Hähnle R., Menzel W., Mostowski W., Roth A., Schlager S., Schmitt P. H.: The KeY Tool. Softw. Syst. Model. 4(1), 32-54 (2005).
3. Aichernig, B. K., Larsenz, P. G.: A proof obligation generator for VDM-SL. In: FME '97: Industrial Applications and Strengthened Foundations of Formal Methods. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1313, pp. 338-357 (1997).
4. Basin D., Doser J., Lodderstedt T.: Model driven security: from UML models to access control infrastructures. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 15(1), 39-91 (2006).
5. Berardi D., Calvanese D., De Giacomo G.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artif. Intell. 168(1), 70-118 (2005).
6. Bordbar, B., Anastasakis, K.: UML2Alloy: a tool for lightweight modelling of discrete event systems. In: Proceedings of IADIS International Conference in Applied Computing 2005, pp. 209-216, Algarve, Portugal (2005).
7. Brucker, A. D.: An interactive proof environment for object-oriented specifications. PhD Thesis, ETH Zurich, March 2007. ETH Dissertation No. 17097.
8. Brucker, A. D., Doser, J., Wolff, B.: Semantic issues of OCL: past, present, and future. Electronic Communications of the EASST, 5 (2006).
9. Brucker A. D., Wolff B.: HOL-OCL-a formal proof environment for UML/OCL. In: Fiadeiro, J., Inverardi, P. (eds) Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE08) Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4961, pp. 97-100. Springer, Budapest (2008).
10. Bry, F., Manthey, R.: Checking consistency of database constraints: a logical basis. In: VLDB '86: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 13-20. Morgan Kaufmann, Menlo Park (1986).
11. Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: UMLtoCSP: a tool for the formal verification of UML/OCL models using constraint programming. In: ASE '07: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Ieee/Acm International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, New York, NY, USA, pp. 547-548. ACM, New York (2007).
12. Cabot J., Teniente E.: Transformation techniques for OCL constraints. Sci. Comput. Program. 68(3), 179-195 (2007).
13. Cadoli, M., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Mancini, T.: Finite model reasoning on UML class diagrams via constraint programming. AIIA 2007: Artificial Intelligence and Human-Oriented Computing, pp. 36-47 (2007).
14. Chiorean, D., Paşca, M., Cârcu, A., Botiza, C., Moldovan, S.: Ensuring UML models consistency using the OCL environment. In: UML 2003-Workshop: OCL 2. 0-Industry Standard or Scientific Playground? (2003).
15. Clarke E. M., Grumberg O., Peled D. A.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000).
16. Correa A. L., Werner C.: Refactoring object constraint language specifications. Softw. Syst. Model. 6(2), 113-138 (2007).
17. Costal D., Gómez C., Queralt A., Raventós R., Teniente E.: Facilitating the definition of general constraints in UML. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds) MoDELS 2006, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4199, pp. 260-274. Springer, Berlin (2006).
18. Costal, D., Gómez, C., Queralt, A., Raventós, R., Teniente, E.: Improving the definition of general constraints in UML. Soft. Syst. Model. (2008).
19. Damm, F. M., Hansen, B., Bruun, H.: On type checking in VDM and related consistency issues. In: 4th International Symposium of VDM Europe on Formal Software Development, Volume I, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 551, pp. 45-62 (1991).
20. Darvas A., Müller P.: Reasoning about method calls in interface specifications. J. Object Technol. 5, 59-85 (2006).
21. Davis J. P., Bonnell R. D.: Propositional logic constraint patterns and their use in UML-based conceptual modeling and analysis. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 19(3), 427-440 (2007).
22. Davis M., Logemann G., Loveland D.: A machine program for theorem-proving. Commun. ACM 5(7), 394-397 (1962).
23. Distefano, D., Katoen, J.-P., Rensink, A.: Towards model checking OCL. In: Proceedings of the ECOOP Workshop on Defining a Precise Semantics for UML (2000).
24. Dwyer, M. B., Avrunin, G. S., Corbett, J. C.: Property specification patterns for finite-state verification. In: FMSP '98: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Formal Methods in Software Practice, pp. 7-15, ACM Press, New York (1998).
25. Emmerich, W., Finkelstein, A., Nentwich, C.: Consistency management with repair actions. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 455-464, IEEE Computer Society, Portland, Oregon (2003).
26. Farré C., Teniente E., Urpí T.: Checking query containment with the CQC method. Data Knowl. Eng. 53(2), 163-223 (2005).
27. Gallier Jean H.: Logic for computer science: foundations of automatic theorem proving. Harper & Row, New York (1986).
28. Giese M., Larsson D.: Simplifying transformations of OCL constraints. In: Briand Lionel, C., Williams, C. (eds) MoDELS., pp. 309-323. MoDELS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3713, Springer (2005).
29. Glubrecht, J.-M., Oberschelp, A., Todt, G.: Klassenlogik. Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim/Wien/Zürich (1983).
30. Gogolla M., Bohling J., Richters M.: Validating UML and OCL models in USE by automatic snapshot generation. Softw. Syst. Model. 4(4), 386-398 (2005).
31. Gogolla, M., Richters, M.: Expressing UML class diagrams properties with OCL. In: Object modeling with the OCL, the rationale behind the object constraint language, pp. 85-114 Springer, London (2002).
32. Hartmann S.: Coping with inconsistent constraint specifications. In: Kunii Hideko, S., Jajodia, S., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) ER, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2224, pp. 241-255. Springer, Berlin (2001).
33. IBM. developerWorks. http://www. ibm. com/developerworks/, December 2007.
34. Jackson D.: Alloy: a lightweight object modelling notation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11(2), 256-290 (2002).
35. Jackson, D., Schechter, I., Shlyakhter, I.: Alcoa: the alloy constraint analyzer. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 730-733 (2000).
36. Jonckers V., Mens T., Simmonds J., Van Der Straeten R.: Using description logic to maintain consistency between UML models. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds) UML. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2863, pp. 326-340. Springer, Berlin (2003).
37. Jones C. B.: Systematic software development using VDM. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1990) ISBN 0-13-880733-7.
38. Kaneiwa K., Satoh K.: Consistency checking algorithms for restricted UML class diagrams. In: Dix, J., Hegner Stephen, J. (eds) FoIKS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3861, pp. 219-239. Springer, Berlin (2006).
39. Kent S.: Model driven engineering. In: Butler Michael, J., Petre, L., Sere, K. (eds) IFM. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2335, pp. 286-298. Springer, Berlin (2002).
40. Kleppe A., Warmer J.: The object constraint language, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003).
41. Küster, J. M.: Consistency management of object-oriented behavioral models. PhD Thesis, University of Paderborn (2004).
42. Küster, J. M., Ryndina, K., Gall, H.: Generation of business process models for object life cycle compliance. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM) Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4714, pp. 165-181. Springer, Berlin (2007).
43. Kyas M., Fecher H., de Boer F. S., Jacob J., Hooman J., van der Zwaag M., Arons T., Kugler H.: Formalizing UML models and OCL constraints in PVS. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 115, 39-47 (2005).
44. Leuschel M., Butler M. J.: ProB: an automated analysis toolset for the B method. STTT 10(2), 185-203 (2008).
45. Liskov B. H., Wing J. M.: A behavioral notion of subtyping. ACM Trans. Programm. Lang. Syst. 16(6), 1811-1841 (1994).
46. Maraee A., Balaban M.: Efficient reasoning about finite satisfiability of UML class diagrams with constrained generalization sets. In: Akehurst David, H., Vogel, R., Paige Richard, F. (eds) ECMDA-FA, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4530, pp. 17-31. Springer, Berlin (2007).
47. Miliauskaitė E., Nemuraitė L.: Representation of integrity constraints in conceptual models. Inf. Technol. Control 34(4), 355-365 (2005).
48. Nipkow T., Paulson L. C., Wenzel M.: Isabelle/HOL-a proof assistant for higher-order logic. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2283. Springer, Berlin (2002).
49. Object Management Group (OMG): UML 2. 0 OCL Final Adopted Specification. http://www. omg. org/cgi-bin/apps/doc?ptc/03-10-14. pdf (2003).
50. Object Management Group (OMG): Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure. Version 2. 1. http://www. omg. org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/2006-04-02, April (2006).
51. Owre S., Rajan S., Rushby J. M., Shankar N., Srivas M.: PVS: combining specification, proof checking, and model checking. Comput. Aided Verif. CAV 96, 411-414 (1996).
52. Queralt, A., Teniente, E.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams with OCL constraints. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2006). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4215, pp. 497-512. Springer, Berlin (2006).
53. Queralt A., Teniente E.: Decidable reasoning in UML schemas with constraints. In: Bellahsene, Z., Léonard, M. (eds) CAiSE. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5074, pp. 281-295. Springer, Berlin (2008).
54. Sabetzadeh, M., Nejati, S., Liaskos, S., Easterbrook, S., Chechik, M.: Consistency checking of conceptual models via model merging. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference 2007 (2007).
55. Snook C. F., Butler M. J.: UML-B: formal modeling and design aided by UML. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 15(1), 92-122 (2006).
56. Wahler, M.: Model-driven software development: integrating quality assurance, Chap A. Pattern approach to increasing the maturity level of class models. Idea Group Inc. (2008).
57. Wahler, M.: Using patterns to develop consistent design constraints. PhD thesis, No. 17643. ETH Zurich, Switzerland, February (2008).
58. Wahler, M., Ackerman, L., Schneider, S.: Using the IBM constraint patterns and consistency analysis extension. A step by step guide. http://www. ibm. com/developerworks/edu/dw-r-conpatcon. html?S_TACT=105AGX15& S_CMP=EDU. May (2008).
59. Wahler, M., Koehler, J., Brucker, A. D.: Model-driven constraint engineering. Electronic Communications of the EASST, 5 (2006).