skip to main content
10.1145/1858996.1859038acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Verification-driven slicing of UML/OCL models

Published:20 September 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Model defects are a significant concern in the Model-Driven Development (MDD) paradigm, as model transformations and code generation may propagate errors to other notations where they are harder to detect and trace. Formal verification techniques can check the correctness of a model, but their high computational complexity can limit their scalability. In this paper, we consider a specific static model (UML class diagrams annotated with unrestricted OCL constraints) and a specific property to verify (satisfiability, i.e., "is it possible to create objects without violating any constraint?"). Current approaches to this problem have an exponential worst-case runtime. We propose a technique to improve their scalability by partitioning the original model into submodels (slices) which can be verified independently and where irrelevant information has been abstracted. The definition of the slicing procedure ensures that the property under verification is preserved after partitioning.

References

  1. }}M. Balaban and A. Maraee. A UML-based method for deciding finite satisfiability in Description Logics. In DL'2008, volume 353 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. }}D. Berardi, D. Calvanese, and G. D. Giacomo. Reasoning on UML class diagrams. AIntelligence, 168:70--118, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. }}A. D. Brucker and B. Wolff. The HOL-OCL book. Technical Report 525, ETH Zurich, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. }}J. Cabot, R. Clarisó, and D. Riera. UMLtoCSP: a tool for the formal verification of UML/OCL models using constraint programming. In ASE'2007, pages 547--548. ACM, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. }}J. Conesa and A. Olivé. Pruning ontologies in the development of conceptual schemas of information systems. In ER'2004, volume 3288 of LNCS, pages 122--135. Springer, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. }}DBLP. Digital bibliography andy library project. http://guifre.lsi.upc.edu/DBLP.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. }}V. Durairaj and P. Kalla. Guiding CNF-SAT search via efficient constraint partitioning. In ICCAD'04, pages 498--501. IEEE Computer Society, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. }}M. Gogolla, J. Bohling, and M. Richters. Validating UML and OCL models in USE by automatic snapshot generation. Journal on Software and System Modeling, 4(4):386--398, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. }}M. Gogolla and M. Richters. Expressing UML Class Diagrams Properties with OCL. In AOM with the OCL, volume 2263 of LNCS, pages 86--115. Springer, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. }}D. Jackson. Alloy: a lightweight object modelling notation. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 11(2):256--290, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. }}D. Jackson. Software Abstractions: Logic, Language and Analysis. MIT Press, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. }}H. H. Kagdi, J. I. Maletic, and A. Sutton. Context-free slicing of UML class models. In ICSM'05, pages 635--638. IEEE Computer Society, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. }}T. H. Kim, Y. T. Song, L. Chung, and D. Huynh. Software architecture analysis: A dynamic slicing approach. International Journal of Computer & Information Science, 1(2):91--103, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. }}R. Kollmann and M. Gogolla. Metric-based selective representation of uml diagrams. In CSMR'02, pages 89--98. IEEE Computer Society, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. }}J. T. Lallchandani and R. Mall. Slicing UML architectural models. In ACM / SIGSOFT SEN, volume 33, pages 1--9, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. }}Y. C. Law and J. H. Lee. Symmetry breaking constraints for value symmetries in constraint satisfaction. Constraints, 11(2--3):221--267, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. }}A. Maraee and M. Balaban. Efficient reasoning about finite satisfiability of UML class diagrams with constrained generalization sets. In ECMDA-FA'2007, volume 4530 of LNCS, pages 17--31. Springer, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. }}B. J. Peterson, W. A. Andersen, and J. Engel. Knowledge bus: Generating application-focused databases from large ontologies. In KRDB '98, volume 10 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pages 2.1--2.10. CEUR-WS.org, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. }}A. Queralt and E. Teniente. Reasoning on UML class diagrams with OCL constraints. In ER'2006, volume 4215 of LNCS, pages 497--512. Springer-Verlag, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. }}G. Rull, C. Farré, E. Teniente, and T. Urpí. Computing explanations for unlively queries in databases. In CIKM'07, pages 955--958. ACM, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. }}J. A. Stafford, D. J. Richardson, and A. L. Wolf. Architecture-level dependence analysis in support of software maintenance. In ISAW'98, pages 129--132, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. }}B. Swartout, P. Ramesh, K. Knight, and T. Russ. Toward distributed use of large-scale ontologies. AAAI Symp. on Ontological Engineering, pages 138--148, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. }}F. Tip. A survey of program slicing techniques. Journal of Programming Languages, 3:121--189, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. }}E. Uzuncaova and S. Khurshid. Kato: A program slicing tool for declarative specifications. In ICSE '07, pages 767--770. IEEE Computer Society, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. }}M. Weiser. Program slicing. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 10(4):352--357, 1984.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Verification-driven slicing of UML/OCL models

                      Recommendations

                      Comments

                      Login options

                      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                      Sign in
                      • Published in

                        cover image ACM Conferences
                        ASE '10: Proceedings of the 25th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering
                        September 2010
                        534 pages
                        ISBN:9781450301169
                        DOI:10.1145/1858996

                        Copyright © 2010 ACM

                        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                        Publisher

                        Association for Computing Machinery

                        New York, NY, United States

                        Publication History

                        • Published: 20 September 2010

                        Permissions

                        Request permissions about this article.

                        Request Permissions

                        Check for updates

                        Qualifiers

                        • research-article

                        Acceptance Rates

                        Overall Acceptance Rate82of337submissions,24%

                        Upcoming Conference

                      PDF Format

                      View or Download as a PDF file.

                      PDF

                      eReader

                      View online with eReader.

                      eReader