Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Integrated Semantics for UML Class, Object and State Diagrams Based on Graph Transformation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Integrated Formal Methods (IFM 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2335))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper studies the semantics of a central part of the Unified Modeling Language UML. It discusses UML class, object and state diagrams and presents a new integrated semantics for both on the basis of graph transformation. Graph transformation is a formal technique having some common ideas with the UML. Graph transformation rules are associated with the operations in class diagrams and with the transitions in state diagrams. The resulting graph transformations are combined into a one system in order to obtain a single coherent semantic description.

This work was partially supported by the project Abstract Implementation of and Documentation with UML (UML-AID) funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the ESPRIT Working Group Applications of Graph Transformation (APPLIGRAPH).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ralph-Johan Back, Luigia Petre, and Ivan Porres Paltor. Analysing UML use cases as contracts. In Robert France and Bernhard 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 518–533. Springer, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Luciano Baresi and Mauro Pezzè. On formalizing UML with high-level Petri Nets. In G. Agha and F. De Cindio, editors, Proc. Concurrent Object-Oriented Programming and Petri Nets, volume 2001 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 271–300, 2001.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Christie Bolton and Jim Davies. Using relational and behavioural semantics in the verification of object models. In Scott F. Smith and Carolyn L. Talcott, editors, Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems IV-Proc. FMOODS’2000, September, 2000, Stanford, California, USA. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Grady Booch, James Rumbaugh, and Ivar Jacobson. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Paolo Bottoni, Manuel Koch, Francesco Parisi-Presicce, and Gabriele Taentzer. Consistency checking and visualization of OCL constraints. In Andy Evans, Stuart Kent, and Bran Selic, editors, UML 2000-The Unified Modeling Language. Advancing the Standard. Third International Conference, York, UK, October 2000, Proceedings, volume 1939 of LNCS, pages 294–308. Springer, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Paolo Bottoni, Manuel Koch, Francesco Parisi-Presicce, and Gabriele Taentzer. A visualization of ocl using collaborations. In Martin Gogolla and Cris Kobryn, editors, UML 2001-The Unified Modeling Language. Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools, volume 2185 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 257–271, 2001.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Giorgio Busatto, Gregor Engels, Katharina Mehner, and Annika Wagner. A framework for adding packages to graph transformation systems. In Hartmut Ehrig, Gregor Engels, Hans-Jörg Kreowski, and Grzegorz Rozenberg, editors, Proc. Theory and Application of Graph Transformations, volume 1764 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 352–367, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tony Clark, Andy Evans, and Stuart Kent. The metamodelling language calculus: Foundation semantics for UML. In Heinrich Hussmann, editor, Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering. 4th International Conference, FASE 2001 Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2001 Genova, Italy, April 2–6. 2001 Proceedings, volume 2029 of LNCS, pages 17–31. Springer, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Frank Drewes, Berthold Hoffmann, and Detlef Plump. Hierarchical graph transformation. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 2002. To appear; short version in Proc. FOSSACS 2000, LNCS 1784.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Desmond D’Souza and Alan Wills. Objects, Components and Frameworks With UML: The Catalysis Approach. Addison-Wesley, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hartmut Ehrig, Gregor Engels, Hans-Jörg Kreowski, and Grzegorz Rozenberg, editors. Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, Vol. 2: Applications, Languages and Tools. World Scientific, Singapore, 1999.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Hartmut Ehrig, Hans-Jörg Kreowski, Ugo Montanari, and Grzegorz Rozenberg, editors. Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, Vol. 3: Concurrency, Parallelism, and Distribution. World Scientific, Singapore, 1999.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Gregor Engels, Jan Hendrik Hausmann, Reiko Heckel, and Stefan Sauer. Dynamic meta modeling: A graphical approach to the operational semantics of behavioral diagrams in UML. In Andy Evans, Stuart Kent, and Bran Selic, editors, UML 2000-The Unified Modeling Language. Advancing the Standard, volume 1939 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 323–337, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gregor Engels, Reiko Heckel, and Jochen Malte Küster. Rule-based specification of behavioral consistency based on the UML meta-model. In Martin Gogolla and Cris Kobryn, editors, UML 2001-The Unified Modeling Language. Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools, volume 2185 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 272–286, 2001.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Gregor Engels and Andy Schuerr. Encapsulated hierachical graphs, graph types, and meta types. In SEGRAGRA’95, Joint COMPUGRAPH/SEMAGRAPH Workshop on Graph Rewriting and Computation, volume 2 of Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science. Elsevier, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Andy Evans and Stuart Kent. Core meta-modelling semantics of UML: The pUML approach. In Robert France and Bernhard 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 140–155. Springer, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Clemens Fischer, Ernst-Rüdiger Olderog, and Heike Wehrheim. A CSP view on UML-RT structure diagrams. In Heinrich Hussmann, editor, Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering. 4th International Conference, FASE 2001 Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2001 Genova, Italy, April 2-6. 2001 Proceedings, volume 2029 of LNCS, pages 91–108. Springer, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  18. T. Fischer, J. Niere, L. Torunski, and A. Zündorf. Story diagrams: A new graph transformation language based on UML and Java. In H. Ehrig, G. Engels, H.-J. Kreowski, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Proc. Theory and Application to Graph Transformations (TAGT’98), Paderborn, November, 1998, volume 1764 of LNCS. Springer, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Robert France, Andy Evans, and Kevin Lano. The UML as a formal modeling notation. In Haim Kilov, Bernhard Rumpe, and Ian Simmonds, editors, Proceedings OOPSLA’ 97 Workshop on Object-oriented Behavioral Semantics, pages 75–81. echnische Universität München, TUM-I9737, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Martin Gogolla. Graph transformations on the UML metamodel. In Jose D. P. Rolim, Andrei Z. Broder, Andrea Corradini, Roberto Gorrieri, Reiko Heckel, Juraj Hromkovic, Ugo Vaccaro, and Joe B. Wells, editors, Proc. ICALP Workshop Graph Transformations and Visual Modeling Techniques (GVMT’2000), pages 359–371. Carleton Scientific, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Martin Gogolla and Francesco Parisi-Presicce. State diagrams in UML: A formal semantics using graph transformations. In Manfred Broy, Derek Coleman, Tom Maibaum, and Bernhard Rumpe, editors, Proc. ICSE’98 Workshop Precise Semantics of Modeling Techniques, Technical Report TUM-I9803, pages 55–72, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  22. David Harel. On visual formalisms. Communications of the A CM, 31(5):514–530, 1988.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Hans-Jörg Kreowski and Sabine Kuske. Graph transformation units with interleaving semantics. Formal Aspects of Computing, 11(6):690–723, 1999.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Sabine Kuske. Transformation Units—A structuring Principle for Graph Transformation Systems. PhD thesis, University of Bremen, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sabine Kuske. A formal semantics of uml state machines based on structured graph transformation. In Martin Gogolla and Cris Kobryn, editors, UML 2001-The Unified Modeling Language. Modeling languages, Concepts, and Tools, volume 2185 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 241–256, 2001.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. J. Küster Filipe, K.-K. Lau, M. Ornaghi, K. Taguchi, A. Wills, and H. Yatsu. Formal specification of Catalysis frameworks. In Jing Song Dong, Jifeng He, and Martin Purvis, editors, Proc. 7th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pages 180–187. IEEE Computer Society Press, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gihwon Kwon. Rewrite rules and operational semantics for model checking UML statecharts. In Andy Evans, Stuart Kent, and Bran Selic, editors, UML 2000-The Unified Modeling Language. Advancing the Standard. Third International Conference, York, UK, October 2000, Proceedings, volume 1939 of LNCS, pages 528–540. Springer, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Diego Latella, Istvan Majzik, and Mieke Massink. Towards a formal operational semantics of UML statechart diagrams. In Proc. FMOODS’99, IFIP TC6/WG6.1 Third International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems, Florence, Italy, February 15–18, 1999. Kluwer, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Johan Lilius and Ivan Porres Paltor. Formalising UML state machines for model checking. In Robert France and Bernhard Rumpe, editors, Proc. UML’99-The Unified Modeling Language. Beyond the Standard, volume 1723 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 430–445, 1999.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Jing Liu, Jin Song Dong, Kun Shi, and Brendan Mahony. Linking UML with integrated formal techniques. In Keng Siau and Terry Halpin, editors, Unified Modeling Language: Systems Analysis, Design and Development Issues, chapter 13, pages 210–223. Idea Publishing Group, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Andrea Maggiolo-Schettini and Adriano Peron. Semantics of full statecharts based on graph rewriting. In Hans-Jürgen Schneider and Hartmut Ehrig, editors, Proc. Graph Transformation in Computer Science, volume 776 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 265–279, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Andrea Maggiolo-Schettini and Adriano Peron. A Graph Rewriting Framework for Statecharts Semantics. In Janice E. Cuny, Hartmut Ehrig, Gregor Engels, and Grzegorz Rozenberg, editors, Proc. 5th Int. Workshop on Graph Grammars and their Application to Computer Science, volume 1073, pages 107–121. Springer-Verlag, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  33. OMG. Unified Modeling Language specifcation, 2001. Available at http://www.omg.org//.

  34. Dorina C. Petriu and Yimei Sun. Consistent behaviour representation in activity and sequence diagrams. In Andy Evans, Stuart Kent, and Bran Selic, editors, Proc. UML 2000-The Unified Modeling Language. Advancing the Standard, volume 1939 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 359–368, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Terrence W. Pratt. Definition of programming language semantics using grammars for hierarchical graphs. In Volker Claus, Hartmut Ehrig, and Grzegorz Rozenberg, editors, Proc. Graph Grammars and Their Application to Computer Science and Biology, volume 73 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 389–400, 1979.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Gianna Reggio, Egidio Astesiano, Christine Choppy, and Heinrich Hussmann. Analysing UML active classes and associated state machines-A lightweight formal approach. In Tom Maibaum, editor, Proc. Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE 2000), Berlin, Germany, volume 1783 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2000.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Grzegorz Rozenberg, editor. Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation, Vol. 1: Foundations. World Scientific, Singapore, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  38. James Rumbaugh, Ivar Jacobson, and Grady Booch. The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Andy Schürr and Andreas J. Winter. UML packages for PROgrammed Graph REwriting Systems. In Hartmut Ehrig, Gregor Engels, Hans-Jörg Kreowski, and Grzegorz Rozenberg, editors, Proc. Theory and Application of Graph Transformations, volume 1764 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 396–409, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Aliki Tsiolakis and Hartmut Ehrig. Consistency analysis of UML class and sequence diagrams using attributed graph grammars. In Hartmut Ehrig and Gabriele Taentzer, editors, Proc. Joint APPLIGRAPH and GETGRATS Workshop on Graph Transformation Systems, Report Nr. 2000-2, Technical University of Berlin, pages 77–86, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jos Warmer and Anneke Kleppe. The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modeling with UML. Addison-Wesley, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Bremen, P.O.Box 330440, D-28334, Bremen, Germany

    Sabine Kuske, Martin Gogolla, Ralf Kollmann & Hans-Jörg Kreowski

Authors
  1. Sabine Kuske
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Gogolla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ralf Kollmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hans-Jörg Kreowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electronics and Computer Science Declarative Systems and Software Engineering, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK

    Michael Butler

  2. Turku Centre for Computer Science, Lemminkäisenkatu 14A, 20520, Turku, Finland

    Luigia Petre

  3. Department of Computer Science, Åbo Akademi University, Lemminkäisenkatu 14, 20520, Turku, Finland

    Kaisa Sere

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kuske, S., Gogolla, M., Kollmann, R., Kreowski, HJ. (2002). An Integrated Semantics for UML Class, Object and State Diagrams Based on Graph Transformation. In: Butler, M., Petre, L., Sere, K. (eds) Integrated Formal Methods. IFM 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2335. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47884-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47884-1_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43703-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47884-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation