Gregor Engels
ABSTRACT
Object-oriented modeling favors the modeling of object behavior from different viewpoints and the successive refinement of behavioral models in the development process. This gives rise to consistency problems of behavioral models. The absence of a formal semantics for UML models and the numerous possibilities of employing behavioral models within the development process lead to the rise of a number of different consistency notions. In this paper, we discuss the issue of consistency of behavioral models in the UML and present a general methodology how consistency problems can be dealt with. According to the methodology, those aspects of the models relevant to the consistency are mapped to a semantic domain in which precise consistency tests can be formulated. The choice of the semantic domain and the definition of consistency conditions can be used to construct different consistency notions. We show the applicability of our methodology by giving an example of a concrete consistency problem of concurrent object-oriented models.
- 1.R. Allen and D. Garlan. A formal basis for architectural connection. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 6(3):213-49, July 1997. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 2.E. Boiten, H. Bowman, J. Derrick, P. Linington, and M. Steen. Viewpoint consistency in ODP. Computer Networks, 34(3):503-537, August 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 3.E. Boiten, H. Bowman, J. Derrick, and M. Steen. Viewpoint consistency in Z and LOTOS: A case study. In J. Fitzgerald, C. B. Jones, and P. Lucas, editors, FME'97: Industrial Applications and Strengthened Foundations of Formal Methods (Proc. 4th Intl. Symposium of Formal Methods Europe, Graz, Austria, September 1997), volume 1313 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 644-664. Springer-Verlag, Sept. 1997. Google Scholar
- 4.B. Cheng, L. Campbell, and E. Wang. Enabling automated analysis through the formalization of object-oriented modeling diagrams. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference onDependable Systems and Networks. IEEE Computer Society, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 5.G. Engels and L. Groenewegen. Object-oriented modeling: A roadmap. In A. Finkelstein, editor, Future Of Software Engineering 2000, pages 105-116. ACM, June 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 6.G. Engels, L. Groenewegen, and J. M. K. uster . Modelling concurrent behaviour through consistent statechart views. In G. Reggio, A. Knapp, B. Rumpe, B. Selic, and R. Wieringa, editors, Proceedings of the Workshop Dynamic Behaviour in UML Models: Semantic Questions, pages 44-49. LMU M. unchen, TR-0006, Oct. 2000.Google Scholar
- 7.G. Engels, R. Heckel, and J. M. K. uster. Rule-Based Specifications of Behavioral Consistency based on the UML Meta-Model. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, 2001. To Appear. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 8.A. Finkelstein, D. Gabbay, A.Hunter, J. Kramer, and B. Nuseibeh. Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications. In I. Sommerville and M. Paul, editors, Proceedings of the Fourth European Software Engineering Conference, pages 84-99. Springer-Verlag, 1993. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 9.Formal Systems Europe (Ltd). Failures-Divergence-Refinement: FDR2 User Manual, 1997.Google Scholar
- 10.P. Fradet, D. L. Metayer,and M. Perin. Consistency checking for multiple view software architectures. In O. Nierstrasz and M. Lemoine, editors, ESEC/FSE '99, volume 1687 of Lecture Notesin Computer Science, pages 410-428. Springer-Verlag / ACM Press, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 11.C. Ghezzi and B. A. Nuseibeh. Special Issue on Managing Inconsistency in Software Development (1). IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(11), Nov. 1998.Google Scholar
- 12.C. Ghezzi and B. A. Nuseibeh. Special Issue on Managing Inconsistency in Software Development (2). IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(11), Nov. 1999.Google Scholar
- 13.J.-J. Hiemer. Statecharts in CSP: Ein Prozessmodell in CSP zur Analyse von STATEMATE-Statecharts. DrKovac Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
- 14.C. A. R. Hoare. Communcating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall, 1985. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 15.J. M. K. uster and J. Stroop. Consistent design of embedded real-time sytems with UML-RT. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC'2001), pages 31 - 40. IEEE Computer Society, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 16.X. Li and J. Lilius. Timing analysis of UML sequence diagrams. In R. France and B. Rumpe, editors, UML'99 - The Unified Modeling Language. Beyond the Standard. Second International Conference, Fort Collins, CO, USA, October 28-30. 1999, Proceedings, volume 1723 of LNCS, pages 661-674. Springer, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 17.A. Moreira and R. Clark. Combining object-oriented modeling and formal description techniques. In M. Tokoro and R. Pareschi, editors, Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP'94), pages 344 - 364. LNCS 821, Springer Verlag, 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 18.Object Modeling Group. Unified Modelling Language Specification, version 1.3, June 1999. URL: uml.shl.com:80/docs/UML1.3/99-06-08.pdf.Google Scholar
- 19.J. Rumbaugh, M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, F. Eddy, and W. Lorensen. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 20.B. Rumpe, M. Schoenmakers, A. Radermacher, and A. Sch. urr. UML + ROOM as a standard ADL? In Proc. ICECCS'99 Fifth IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, Las Vegas, USA. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 21.B. Selic. Using UML for modeling complex real-time systems. In F. Mueller and A. Bestavros, editors, Languages, Compilers, and Tools for Embedded Systems, volume 1474 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 250-262. Springer Verlag, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 22.G. Spanoudakis, A. Finkelstein, and D. Till. Overlaps in requirements engineering. Automated Software Engineering: An International Journal, 6(2):171-198, Apr. 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 23.M. von der Beeck. Behaviour specifications: Equivalence and refinement notions. In H. Giese and S. Phillippi, editors, Visuelle Verhaltensmodellierung verteilter und nebenl. aufiger Software- Systeme, 8. Workshop des Arbeitskreises GROOM der GI Fachgruppe 2.1.9 Objektorientierte Software-Entwicklung, 13.-14. November 2000, Universit. at M. unster. Techreport 24/00-I.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- A methodology for specifying and analyzing consistency of object-oriented behavioral models
Recommendations
A methodology for specifying and analyzing consistency of object-oriented behavioral models
Object-oriented modeling favors the modeling of object behavior from different viewpoints and the successive refinement of behavioral models in the development process. This gives rise to consistency problems of behavioral models. The absence of a ...
Rule-Based Specification of Behavioral Consistency Based on the UML Meta-model
«UML» '01: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language, Modeling Languages, Concepts, and ToolsObject-oriented modeling favors the modeling of object behavior from different viewpoints and at different levels of abstraction. This gives rise to consistency problems between overlapping or semantically related submodels. The absence of a formal ...
Towards Inconsistency Handling of Object-Oriented Behavioral Models
With the Unified Modeling Language being used in diverse contexts, the ability of defining and checking customized consistency conditions is of increasing importance. Often, consistency checks rely on existing formal analysis tools such as model ...
Comments