Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

UML formal semantics: lessons learned

  • Expert's Voice
  • Published:
Software & Systems Modeling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The article below presents the insights gained during a number of years of research dedicated to the formalisation of the Unified Modeling Language.

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. Object Management Group: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure—Version 2.3. Technical Report Document Number formal/2010-05-05, OMG. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.3/Superstructure/PDF/ (2010). Retrieved 2011-01-18

  2. Booch, G., Maksimchuk, R.A., Engle, M.W., Young, B.J., Connallen, J., Houston, K.A.: Object-oriented analysis and design with applications, 3rd edition. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, vol. 33 (2008)

  3. Rumbaugh J.E., Blaha M.R., Premerlani W.J., Eddy F., Lorensen W.E.: Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jacobson I.: Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc., Redwood City (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Harel D.: Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comput. Progr. 8, 231–274 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Warmer J.B., Kleppe A.G.: The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modeling With UML. Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc., Redwood City (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jacobson I., Booch G., Rumbaugh J.: The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc., Boston (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gornik, D.: IBM Rational Unified Process: best practices for software development teams. Technical Report TP026B, Rev 11/01, IBM. ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/software/rational/web/whitepapers/2003/rup_bestpractices.pdf (2004). Retrieved 2010-07-01

  9. Stapleton, J.: DSDM: Dynamic Systems Development Method. In: 29th International Conference on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems (TOOLS Europe 1999), IEEE Computer Society, vol. 406 (1999)

  10. Rumpe, B.: A note on semantics (with an Emphasis on UML). In: Kilov, H., Rumpe, B., (eds.) 2nd ECOOP Workshop on Precise Behavioral Semantics. Technical Report TUM-I9813, Institut für Informatik, pp. 177–197. Technische Universität München (1998)

  11. Richters, M.: A Precise Approach to Validating UML Models and OCL Constraints. PhD thesis, Universität Bremen, Logos, Berlin, BISS Monographs, No. 14 (2002)

  12. Cuccuru, A., Mraidha, C., Terrier, F., Gérard, S.: Enhancing UML Extensions with Operational Semantics. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F., (eds.): Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS’07, Proceedings). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4735, pp. 271–285. Springer, Berlin (2007)

  13. Evermann J.: A cognitive semantics for the association construct. Requir. Eng. 13, 167–186 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cook, S.: UML2.0—Trying to have it both ways, pp. 4–7 of [39]

  15. Cook, S.: UML Semantics. Steve Cook’s WebLog. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/stevecook/archive/2004/12/08/278507.aspx (2004). Retrieved 2010-07-01

  16. Object Management Group: Introduction to OMG’s Unified Modeling Language (UML). Technical report, OMG. http://www.omg.org/gettingstarted/what_is_uml.htm (2009). Retrieved 2010-07-01

  17. Object Management Group: Getting Specifications and Products. Technical report, OMG. http://www.omg.org/gettingstarted/specsandprods.htm (2009). Retrieved 2010-07-01

  18. Object Management Group: Object Constraint Language. Technical Report Document Number formal/2010-02-01, OMG. http://www.omg.org/spec/OCL/2.2/PDF (2010). Retrieved 2011-01-18

  19. Cengarle M.V., Knapp A.: OCL 1.4/1.5 vs. OCL 2.0 expressions: formal semantics and expressiveness. Softw. Syst. Model. 3, 9–30 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Störrle, H.: Assert, Negate and Refinement in UML-2 Interactions. In: Jürjens, J., Rumpe, B., France, R., Fernandez, E.B. (eds.) 2nd International Workshop on Critical Systems Development with UML (CSDUML’03, Proceedings). Technical Report TUM-I0323, pp. 79–93. Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München (2003)

  21. Cengarle, M.V., Knapp, A.: UML 2.0 Interactions: Semantics and Refinement. In: Jürjens, J., Fernandez, E.B., France, R., Rumpe, B. (eds.) 3rd International Workshop on Critical Systems Development with UML (CSDUML’04, Proceedings). Technical Report TUM-I0415, pp. 85–99. Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München (2004)

  22. Seehusen F.: Specifying enforcable high level policies with UML sequence diagrams. Telektronikk 105, 126–134 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Harel D., Maoz S.: Assert and negate revisited: modal semantics for UML sequence diagrams. Softw. Syst. Model. 7, 237–252 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. von der Beeck M.: A structured operational semantics for UML-statecharts. Softw. Syst. Model. 1, 130–141 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Simons, A.J.H.: On the compositional properties of UML statechart diagrams. In: Rigorous Object-Oriented Methods (ROOM 2000, Proceedings). Workshops in Computing, BCS (2000)

  26. von der Beeck, M.: A Comparison of Statecharts Variants. In: Langmaack, H., de Roever, W.P., Vytopil, J. (eds.) Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems (3rd FTRTFT, Proceedings). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 863, pp. 128–148. Springer, Berlin (1994)

  27. Simons, A.J.H., Graham, I.: 30 Things that go wrong in object modelling with UML 1.3. In: Kilov, H., Rumpe, B., Simmonds, I. (eds.) Behavioral Specifications of Businesses and Systems, pp. 237–257. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Chapter 17 (1999)

  28. Object Management Group: Semantics of a Foundational Subset for Executable UML Models—Request For Proposal. Technical Report Document Number ad/2005-04-02, OMG. http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/05-04-02.pdf (2005). Retrieved 2011-01-18

  29. Object Management Group: Semantics of a Foundational Subset for Executable UML Models (fUML), version 1.0. Technical Report Document Number formal/2011-02-01, OMG. http://www.omg.org/spec/FUML/1.0/PDF (2011). Retrieved 2011-01-18

  30. Broy, M., Cengarle, M.V., Grönniger, H., Rumpe, B.: Considerations and Rationale for a UML System Model. In: Lano, K. (ed.) UML 2 Semantics and Applications, pp. 43–60. Wiley, Hoboken, Chapter 3 (2009)

  31. Broy, M., Cengarle, M.V., Grönniger, H., Rumpe, B.: Definition of the System Model. In Lano, K. (ed.) UML 2 Semantics and Applications, pp.61–93. Wiley, Hoboken, Chapter 4 (2009)

  32. Cengarle, M.V., Dingel, J., Grönniger, H., Rumpe, B.: System-model-based simulation of the UML. In: Nordic Workshop on Model Driven Engineering (5th NW-MoDE 2007, Proceedings), pp. 112–126. Blekinge Tekniska Högskola, Research Report 2007:8. ISSN 978-91-7295-985-9. http://www.sse-tubs.de/publications/CDGR07NWMODE.pdf (2007). Retrieved 2011-06-14

  33. Crane, M.L., Dingel, J.: Towards a formal account of a foundational subset for executable UML models. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) 11th International Conference Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS’08, Proceedings). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5301, pp. 675–689. Springer, Berlin (2008)

  34. Cengarle, M.V., Knapp, A., Tarlecki, A., Wirsing, M.: A Heterogeneous Approach to UML Semantics. In: Degano, P., Nicola, R.D., Meseguer, J. (eds.) Concurrency, graphs and models: essays dedicated to Ugo Montanari on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5065, pp. 383–402. Springer, Berlin (2008)

  35. Naumenko, A., Wegmann, A.: Triune continuum paradigm and problems of UML semantics. Technical Report IC/2003/44, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland. http://www.triunecontinuum.com/documents/tr03_044.pdf (2003). Retrieved 2010-07-16

  36. Picek, R., Strahonja, V.: Model driven development—future or failure of software development? In: 18th International Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems (Proceedings), Faculty of Organization and Informatics, pp. 407–413. Varaždin (2007)

  37. Kapteijns, T., Jansen, S., Brinkkemper, S., Houët, H., Barendse, R.: A comparative case study of model-driven development vs traditional development: the tortoise or the hare. In: Bailey, T., Vogel, R., Mansell, J. (eds.) From code centric to model centric software engineering: Practices, Implications and ROI (4th European C2M Workshop, CTIT Proceedings), pp. 22–33. University of Twente (2009)

  38. Ross D.T.: Applications and extensions of SADT. IEEE Comput. 18, 25–34 (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Henderson-Sellers B.: UML—the Good, the Bad or the Ugly?. Perspectives from a panel of experts. Softw. Syst. Model. 4(1), 4–13 (2005). doi:10.1007/s10270-004-0076-8

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Software and Systems Engineering, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Manfred Broy & María Victoria Cengarle

Authors
  1. Manfred Broy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. María Victoria Cengarle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Manfred Broy or María Victoria Cengarle.

Additional information

Communicated by Bernhard Rumpe.

The insights reflected in this article are the corollary of the rUML project financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Broy, M., Cengarle, M.V. UML formal semantics: lessons learned. Softw Syst Model 10, 441–446 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-011-0207-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-011-0207-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation