A graph grammar-based formal validation of object-process diagrams

Software and Systems Modeling

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 287-302

  Bibliowicz, Arieh ^a   Dori, Dov ^a,b  

^a TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Formal system model; Graph transformation; Model verification; Object process modeling

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL MODEL; FORMAL DEFINITION; FORMAL MODELING LANGUAGE; FORMAL SYSTEMS; FORMAL VALIDATION; GRAPH GRAMMAR; GRAPH TRANSFORMATION; MODEL VERIFICATION; MODELING METHODOLOGY; OBJECT-PROCESS METHODOLOGY; SYSTEMS MODELING; VALIDATION METHODOLOGIES;

CONTEXT SENSITIVE GRAMMARS; FORMAL LANGUAGES; SEMANTICS; SYNTACTICS;

GRAPH THEORY;

EID: 84860480881     PISSN: 16191366     EISSN: 16191374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10270-011-0201-4     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Peterson J. L.: Petri nets. ACM Comput. Surv. 9, 223-252 (1977).
2. Bibliowicz, A.: A graph grammar-based formal validation of an object-process diagram, M. Sc. Thesis, Technion, Israel. Available at http://www. vainolo. com/files/research/A-Graph-Grammar-Based-Formal-Validation-of-an-Object-Process-Diagram. pdf (2008).
3. Breu, R., Hinkel, U., Hofmann, C., Klein, C., Paech, B., Rumpe, B., Thurner, V.: Towards a formalization of the unified modeling language. In: ECOOP-11th European Conference in Object-Oriented Programming. LNCS, vol. 1241, pp. 344-366. Springer, Berlin (1997).
4. Bruel, J., France, R. B.: Transforming UML models to formal specifications. Available at http://www. cs. york. ac. uk/puml/papers/brueluml98. pdf (1998).
5. Corradini A., Ehrig H., Heckel R., Löwe M., Montanari U., Rossi F.: Algebraic approaches to graph transformation, part I: basic concepts and double pushout approach. In: Rozenberg, G. (eds) Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation. Foundations, vol. 1. World Scientific, Singapore (1997).
6. Dori D.: Object-process methodology: a holistic systems paradigm. Springer, New York (2002).
7. Dori, D., Linchevski, C., Manor, R.: OPCAT-a software environment for object-process methodology based conceptual modeling of complex systems. In: Proceedings 1st International Conference on Modelling and Management of Engineering Processes. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, pp. 147-151 (2010).
8. Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Habel, A., Pennemann, K.: Constraints and application conditions: from graphs to high-level structures. In: ICGT 2004-2nd International Conference in Graph Transformations. LNCS, vol. 3256, pp. 287-303. Springer, Berlin (2004).
9. Ehrig, H., Heckel, R., Korff, M., Löwe, M., Ribeiro, L., Wagner, A., Corradini, A.: Algebraic approaches to graph transformation. Part II: single pushout approach and comparison with double pushout approach. In: Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation. Foundations, Vol. I, pp. 247-312. World Scientific, Singapore (1997).
10. Evans, A., France, R. B., Lano, K., Rumpe, B.: The UML as a formal modeling notation. In: UML '98: Selected papers from the First International Workshop on The Unified Modeling Language UML. LNCS, vol. 1618, pp. 336-348. Springer, Berlin (1999).
11. France R. B., Ghosh S., Dinh-Trong T., Solberg A.: Model-driven development using UML 2. 0: promises and pitfalls. Computer 39(2), 59 (2006).
12. Gogolla, M., Parisi-Presicce, F.: State diagrams in UML: a formal semantics using graph transformations. In: Broy, M., Coleman, D., Maibaum, Tom S. E., Rumpe, B. (eds.) Proceedings PSMT'98 Workshop on Precise Semantics for Modeling Techniques. Technische Universitat München, TUM-I9803 (1998).
13. Kuske S., Gogolla M., Kreowski H. J., Ziemann P.: Towards an integrated graph-based semantics for UML. Softw. Syst. Model. 8(3), 385-401 (2009).
14. Habel A., Heckel R., Taentzer G.: Graph grammars with negative application conditions. Fundam. Inf. 26(3-4), 287-313 (1996).
15. Heckel, R.: Embedding of conditional graph transformations. In: Valiente F. G., Rosello, L. F. (eds) Proceedings Colloquium on Graph Transformation and its Application in Computer Science, Technical Report B-19, Universitat de les Illes Balears (1995).
16. Jürjens, J.: A UML statecharts semantics with message-passing. In: SAC-Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1009-1013 (2002).
17. Kobryn C.: UML 3. 0 and the future of modeling. Softw. Syst. Model. 3(1), 4-8 (2004).
18. Kong, J., Zhang, K., Dong, J., Song, G.: A graph grammar approach to software architecture verification and transformation. In: COMPSAC '03-Proceedings of the 27th Annual International Conference on Computer Software and Applications, p. 492. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2003).
19. Kuske, S.: A formal semantics of UML state machines based on structured graph transformation. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language, Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 241-256. Springer, Berlin (2001).
20. Mwaluseke, G. W., Bowen, J. P.: UML Formalisation Literature Survey, at http://citeseerx. ist. psu. edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10. 1. 1. 119. 9075 (2001).
21. Nestor, A. O.: Modeling of large and complex applications with UML, at http://citeseerx. ist. psu. edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10. 1. 1. 4. 3347.
22. Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language (UML) 2. 0 Infrastructure Specification, at http://www. uml. org/ (2003).
23. Reinhartz-Berger I., Dori D.: A reflective metamodel of object-process methodology: the system modeling building blocks. In: Green, P., Rosemann, M. (eds) Business Systems Analysis with Ontologies, Idea Group, Alberta (2005).
24. Snook C., Butler M.: UML-B: formal modeling and design aided by UML. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 15(1), 92-122 (2006).
25. Soffer P., Golany B., Dori D., Wand Y.: Modelling off-the-shelf information systems requirements: an ontological approach. Requir. Eng. 6(3), 183-199 (2001).
26. Spivey J. M.: The Z notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice-Hall, Inc, Upper Saddle River (1989).
27. Störrle, H., Hausmann, J. H.: Towards a Formal Semantics of UML 2. 0 Activities. In: Software Engineering, pp. 117-128 (2005).
28. Tchertchago, A.: Formal Semantics for a UML Fragment Using UML/OCL Metamodeling, at http://citeseerx. ist. psu. edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10. 1. 1. 9. 5869 (2002).
29. Thomas D.: MDA: revenge of the modelers or UML Utopia?. IEEE Softw. 21(3), 15-17 (2004).
30. USA Department of Defense: DoD Architecture Framework Version 2. 0, at http://cio-nii. defense. gov/sites/dodaf20/index. html (2009).
31. Vanderperren, Y., Dehaene, W.: UML 2 and SysML: an approach to deal with complexity in SoC/NoC Design. In: DATE, pp. 716-717 (2005).
32. Wand Y., Weber R.: On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. J. Inform. Syst. 3(4), 217-237 (1993).
33. Ziemann P., Hölscher K., Gogolla M.: From UML models to graph transformation systems. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 127(4), 17-33 (2005).