A formal semantics for OCL 1.4

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

Volumn 2185, Issue , 2001, Pages 118-133

  Cengarle, María Victoria ^a,b   Knapp, Alexander ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b FRAUNHOFER IESE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES; FORMAL METHODS; SEMANTICS;

FORMAL SEMANTICS; OBJECT MODEL; OPERATIONAL INTERPRETATION; OPERATIONAL SEMANTICS; STATIC STRUCTURES; SUBJECT REDUCTION; TYPE INFERENCES;

UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

EID: 84948951307     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45441-1_10     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. T. Baar and R. Hähnle. An Integrated Metamodel for OCL Types. In R. France, editor, Proc. OOPSLA’2000 Wsh. Refactoring the UML: In Search of the Core, Minneapolis, 2000
2. M. Bickford and D. Guaspari. Lightweight Analysis of UML. Draft NAS1-20335/10, Odyssey Research Assoc., 1998. http://cgi.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/98-10-01
3. M. V. Cengarle and A. Knapp. On the Expressive Power of Pure OCL. Technical Report 0101, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 2001
4. T. Clark. Type Checking UML Static Diagrams. In R. B. France and B. Rumpe, editors, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. UML, volume 1723 of Lect. Notes Comp. Sci., pages 503-517. Springer, Berlin, 1999
5. S. Drossopoulou and S. Eisenbach. Describing the Semantics of Java and Proving Typing Soundness. In J. Alves-Foss, editor, Formal Syntax and Semantics of Java, volume 1523 of Lect. Notes Comp. Sci., pages 41-82. Springer, Berlin, 1999
6. A. Evans, S. Kent, and B. Selic, editors. Proc. 3nd Int. Conf. UML, volume 1939 of Lect. Notes Comp. Sci. Springer, Berlin, 2000
7. A. Hami, J. Howse, and S. Kent. Interpreting the Object Constraint Language. In Proc. Asia Pacific Conf. Software Engineering. IEEE Press, 1998
8. H. Hußmann, B. Demuth, and F. Finger. Modular Architecture for a Toolset Supporting OCL. In Evans et al. [6], pages 278-293
9. http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/puml/mmf/mmt.zip
10. R. Milner, M. Tofte, R. Harper, and D. MacQueen. The Definition of Standard ML (Revised). MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1997
11. J. C. Mitchell. Foundations for Programming Languages. Foundations of Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.-London, England, 1996
12. Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.4. Draft, OMG, 2001. http://cgi.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/01-02-14
13. http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/puml/puml-list-archive
14. M. Richters and M. Gogolla. On Formalizing the UML Object Constraint Language OCL. In T. W. Ling, S. Ram, and M. L. Lee, editors, Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Conceptual Modeling, volume 1507 of Lect. Notes Comp. Sci., pages 449-464. Springer, Berlin, 1998
15. M. Richters and M. Gogolla. Validating UML Models and OCL Constraints. In Evans et al.[6], pages 265-277
16. M. Richters and M. Gogolla. OCL — Syntax, Semantics and Tools. In T. Clark and J. Warmer, editors, Advances in Object Modelling with the OCL, Lect. Notes Comp. Sci., pages 38-63. Springer, Berlin, 2001
17. A. Schürr. New Type Checking Rules for OCL (Collection) Expressions. In T. Clark and J. Warmer, editors, Proc. UML’2000 Wsh. UML 2.0 — The Future of OCL, York, 2000