Strengthening UML collaboration diagrams by state transformations

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 2029, Issue , 2001, Pages 109-123

  Heckel, Reiko ^a   Sauer, Stefan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PADERBORN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Graph process; Graph transformation; Pre postconditions; UML collaboration diagrams

Indexed keywords

GRAPH THEORY;

COLLABORATION DIAGRAM; GRAPH TRANSFORMATION; GRAPH TRANSFORMATION SYSTEM; PRE/POSTCONDITIONS; STATE TRANSFORMATION; SYSTEM STRUCTURES; UML COLLABORATIONS;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 84944261062     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45314-8_9     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. Action Semantics Consortium. Precise action semantics for the Unified Modeling Language, August 2000. http://www.kc.com/as_site/.
2. P. Bottoni, M. Koch, F. Parisi Presicce, and G. Taentzer. Consistency checking and visualization of OCL constraints. In Evans et al. [13], pages 294-308.
3. D. Coleman, P. Arnold, S. Bodof, C. Dollin, H. Gilchrist, F. Hayes, and P. Jeremes. Object Oriented Development, The Fusion Method. Prentice Hall, 1994.
4. A. Corradini, U. Montanari, and F. Rossi. Graph processes. Fundamenta Informaticae, 26(3,4):241-266, 1996.
5. A. Corradini, U. Montanari, F. Rossi, H. Ehrig, R. Heckel, and M. Löwe. Algebraic approaches to graph transformation, Part I: Basic concepts and double pushout approach. In G. Rozenberg, editor, Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, Volume 1: Foundations, pages 163-245.World Scientific, 1997.
6. D. D'Souza and A. Wills. Components and Frameworks with UML: The Catalysis Approach. Addison-Wesley, 1998.
7. H. Ehrig, G. Engels, H.-J. Kreowski, and G. Rozenberg, editors. Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, Volume 2: Applications, Languages, and Tools. World Scientific, 1999.
8. H. Ehrig, G. Engels, H.-J. Kreowski, and G. Rozenberg, editors. Proc. 6th Int. Workshop on Theory and Application of Graph Transformation (TAGT'98), Paderborn, November 1998, volume 1764 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 2000.
9. H. Ehrig, H.-J. Kreowski, U. Montanari, and G. Rozenberg, editors. Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, Volume 3: Concurrency and Distribution. World Scientific, 1999.
10. H. Ehrig, M. Pfender, and H.J. Schneider. Graph grammars: an algebraic approach. In 14th Annual IEEE Symposium on Switching and Automata Theory, pages 167-180. IEEE, 1973.
11. G. Engels, J.H. Hausmann, R. Heckel, and St. Sauer. Dynamic meta modeling: A graphical approach to the operational semantics of behavioral diagrams in UML. In Evans et al. [13], pages 323-337.
12. G. Engels, R. Hücking, St. Sauer, and A. Wagner. UML collaboration diagrams and their transformation to Java. In France and Rumpe [15], pages 473-488.
13. A. Evans, S. Kent, and B. Selic, editors. Proc. UML 2000-Advancing the Standard, volume 1939 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 2000.
14. T. Fischer, J. Niere, L. Torunski, and A. Zündorf. Story diagrams: A new graph transformation language based on UML and Java. In Ehrig et al. [8].
15. R. France and B. Rumpe, editors. Proc. UML'99-Beyond the Standard, volume 1723 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1999.
16. M. Gogolla. Graph transformations on the UML metamodel. In J. D. P. Rolim et al., editors, Proc. ICALP Workshops 2000, Geneva, Switzerland, pages 359-371. Carleton Scientific, 2000.
17. M. Große-Rhode, F. Parisi Presicce, and M. Simeoni. Refinement of graph transformation systems via rule expressions. In Ehrig et al. [8], pages 368-382.
18. R. Heckel, A. Corradini, H. Ehrig, and M. LÖwe. Horizontal and vertical structuring of typed graph transformation systems. Math. Struc. in Comp. Science, 6(6):613-648, 1996.
19. R. Heckel, H. Ehrig, U. Wolter, and A. Corradini. Double-pullback transitions and coalgebraic loose semantics for graph transformation systems. Applied Categorical Structures, 9(1), January 2001.
20. R. Heckel and St. Sauer. Strengthening the semantics of UML collaboration diagrams. In G. Reggio, A. Knapp, B. Rumpe, B. Selic, and R. Wieringa, editors, UML'2000 Workshop on Dynamic Behavior in UML Models: Semantic Questions, pages 63-69. October 2000. Tech. Report no. 0006, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany.
21. R. Heckel and A. Zündorf. How to specify a graph transformation approach: A meta model for fujaba. In H. Ehrig and J. Padberg, editors, Uniform Approaches to Graphical Process Specification Techniques, satellite workshop of ETAPS 2001, Genova, Italy, 2001. To appear.
22. A. Knapp. A formal semantics of UML interactions. In France and Rumpe [15], pages 116-130.
23. M. Merro and D. Sangiorgi. On asynchrony in name-passing calculi. In Proc. ICALP'98, volume 1443 of LNCS, pages 856-867. Springer-Verlag, 1998.
24. Object Management Group. UML Specification version 1.3, June 1999. http://www.omg.org.
25. Object Management Group. UML Specification version 1.4beta R1, November 2000. http://www.celigent.com/omg/umlrtf/.
26. G. Övergaard. A formal approach to collaborations in the Unified Modeling Language. In France and Rumpe [15], pages 99-115.
27. V. Pratt. Modeling concurrency with partial orders. Int. Journal. of Parallel Programming, 15(1):33-71, February 1986.
28. W. Reisig. Petri Nets, volume 4 of EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1985.
29. A. Schürr, A.J. Winter, and A. Zündorf. The PROGRES approach: Language and environment. In Ehrig et al. [7], pages 487-550.