Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Software & Systems Modeling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two basic requirements from a system’s conceptual model are correctness and comprehensibility. Most modeling methodologies satisfy only one of these apparently contradicting requirements, usually comprehensibility, leaving aside problems of correctness and ambiguousness that are associated with expressiveness. Some formal modeling languages do exist, but in these languages a complete model of a complex system is fairly complicated to understand. Object-process methodology (OPM) is a holistic systems modeling methodology that combines the two major aspects of a system—structure and behavior—in one model, providing mechanisms to manage the complexity of the model using refinement-abstraction operations, which divide a complex system into many interconnected diagrams. Although the basic syntax and semantics of an OPM model are defined, they are incomplete and leave room for incorrect or ambiguous models. This work advances the formal definition of OPM by providing a graph grammar for creating and checking OPM diagrams. The grammar provides a validation methodology of the semantic and syntactic correctness of a single object-process diagram.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Peterson J.L.: Petri nets. ACM Comput. Surv. 9, 223–252 (1977)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dori D.: Object-process methodology: a holistic systems paradigm. Springer, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Habel A., Heckel R., Taentzer G.: Graph grammars with negative application conditions. Fundam. Inf. 26(3–4), 287–313 (1996)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Snook C., Butler M.: UML-B: formal modeling and design aided by UML. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 15(1), 92–122 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Spivey J.M.: The Z notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice-Hall, Inc, Upper Saddle River (1989)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ziemann P., Hölscher K., Gogolla M.: From UML models to graph transformation systems. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 127(4), 17–33 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, 32000, Haifa, Israel

    Arieh Bibliowicz & Dov Dori

  2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Dov Dori

Authors
  1. Arieh Bibliowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dov Dori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arieh Bibliowicz.

Additional information

Communicated by Dr. Jeff Gray.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bibliowicz, A., Dori, D. A graph grammar-based formal validation of object-process diagrams. Softw Syst Model 11, 287–302 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-011-0201-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-011-0201-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation