Skip to main content

UML Semantics FAQ

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Object-Oriented Technology ECOOP’99 Workshop Reader (ECOOP 1999)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1743))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a workshop held at ECOOP’99. The workshop was set up to find answers to questions fundamental to the definition of a semantics for the Unified Modelling Language. Questions examined the meaning of the term semantics in the context of UML; approaches to defining the semantics, including the feasibility of the meta-modelling approach; whether a single semantics is desirable and, if not, how to set up a framework for defining multiple, interlinked semantics; and some of the outstanding problems for defining a semantics for all of UML.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. F. Civello. Roles for composite objects in object-oriented analysis and design. In OOPSLA’93 Conference Proceedings, ACM SIGPLAN Notices 23:10, October 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  2. S. Cook, A. Kleppe, R. Mitchell, B. Rumpe, J. Warmer, and A. Wills. Defining uml family members using prefaces. In C. Mingins and B. Meyer, editors, Proceedings of TOOLS Pacific 99. IEEE Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  3. W.R. Cook, W.R. Hill, and P.S. Canning. Inheritance is not subtyping. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, pages 125–135, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  5. A.S. Evans and S. Kent. Meta-modelling semantics of UML: the pUML approach. In B. Rumpe and R.B. France, editors, 2nd International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Robert Geisler. Precise UML semantics through formal metamodeling. In Luis Andrade, Ana Moreira, Akash Deshpande, and Stuart Kent, editors, Proceedings of the OOPSLA’98 Workshop on Formalizing UML. Why? How?, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Martin Gogolla and Mark Richters. Equivalence rules for UML class diagrams. In Pierre-Alain Muller and Jean Bézivin, editors, Proceedings of UML’98 International Workshop, Mulhouse, France, June 3–4, 1998, pages 87–96. ESSAIM, Mulhouse, France, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Object Management Group. UML specification version 1.3. Technical Report ad/99-06-08, June 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  9. B. Henderson-Sellers and F. Barbier. Black and white diamonds. In B. Rumpe and R.B. France, editors, 2nd International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  10. B. Henderson-Sellers and F. Barbier. What is this thing called aggregation? In R. Mitchell, A.C. Wills, J. Bosch, and B. Meyer, editors, TOOLS29, pages 216–230. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  11. E. Rudolph, J. Grabowski, and P. Graubmann. Tutorial on message sequence charts (msc’96). Tutorials at First Joint Conference FORTE/PSTV’96, Kaiserslautern, Germany, October 1996.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bernhard Rumpe. A note on semantics (with an emphasis on UML). In Haim Kilov and Bernhard Rumpe, editors, Proceedings Second ECOOP Workshop on Precise Behavioral Semantics (with an Emphasis on OO Business Specifications), pages 177–197. Technische Universität München, TUM-I9813, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Monika Saksena, Robert France, and Maria Larrondo-Petri. A characterization of aggregation. In C. Rolland and G. Grosz, editors, Proceedings of OOIS98, pages 11–19. Springer, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  15. S. Sch÷nnberger and R.K. Keller. Algorithmic support for model transformation in object-oriented development. Publications of DIRO, August 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  16. M. Snoeck and G. Dedene. Existence dependency: the key to semantic integrity between structural and behavioural aspects of object types. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 24(4):233–251, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kent, S., Evans, A., Rumpe⋆, B. (1999). UML Semantics FAQ. In: Moreira, A. (eds) Object-Oriented Technology ECOOP’99 Workshop Reader. ECOOP 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1743. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46589-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46589-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-66954-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46589-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics