Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Describing the Syntax and Semantics of UML Statecharts in a Heterogeneous Modelling Environment

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Diagrammatic Representation and Inference (Diagrams 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2317))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In this paper UML statechart diagrams are used as an example of a generic approach to integrating a visual language in a heterogeneous modelling and simulation environment.Asystem represented in a visual language is syntactically defined as an attributed graph, with well-formedness rules specified by a set of firstorder predicates over the abstract syntax of the graph. The language semantics are specified by an Abstract State Machine (ASM) parameterized with syntacticallycorrect attributed graphs. In this paper the key issues in the definition of UML statechart semantics are highlighted.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

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. ASM Michigan web page, http://www.eecs.umich.edu/gasm/.

  2. Moses project, Computer Engineering and Communications Laboratory, ETH Zurich. http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/~moses.

  3. E. Börger, A. Cavarra, and E. Riccobene. Modeling the Dynamics of UML State Machines. In Y. Gurevich and P. Kutter and M. Odersky and L. Thiele, editor, Abstract State Machines: Theory and Applications, LNCS 1912, pages 223–241. Springer-Verlag, 2000.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. K. Compton, J. Huggins, and W. Shen. A semantic model for the state machine in the Unified Modeling Language. In Proceeding of Dynamic Behavior inUMLModels: Semantic Questions, UML 2000 workshop, pages 25–31, York, England, October 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. Esser and J. W. Janneck. Moses-a tool suite for visual modelling of discrete-event systems. In Symposium on Visual/Multimedia Approaches to Programming and Software Engineering, HCC01, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Y. Gurevich. Evolving Algebras. In B. Pehrson and I. Simon, editors, IFIP 13thWorld Computer Congress, volume I: Technology/Foundations, pages 423–427, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  7. D. Harel and A. Naamad. The STATEMATE Semantics of Satecharts. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5(4):293–333, October 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. D. Harel, A. Pnueli, J. P. Schmidt, and R. Sherman. On the formal semantics of statecharts. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 54–64. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J.W. Janneck. Graph-type Definition Language (GTDL)-Specification. Technical report, Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory, ETH Zurich, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  10. J.W. Janneck. Syntax and semantics of graphs-An approach to the specification of visual notations for discrete-event systems. PhD thesis, ETH Zurich, June 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J.W. Janneck and R. Esser. A predicate-based approach to defining visual language syntax. In Symposium on Visual Languages and Formal Methods, HCC01, Stresa, Italy, September 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. W. Janneck and P. W. Kutter. Mapping automata-simple abstract state machines. In Proceedings of ASM 2000, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  13. D. Latella, I. Majzik, and M. Massink. Towards a formal operational semantics of UML statechart diagrams. In Proceedings of IFIP TC6/WG6.1 Third International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems (FMOODS’99), Florence, Italy, February 1999. Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. Lilius and I. P. Paltor. Formalising UML state machines for model checking. In R. France and B. Rumpe, editors, UML’99-The Unified Modeling Language. Beyond the Standard., LNCS 1723, pages 430–445, Fort Collins, CO, USA, October 1999. Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. E. Mikk, Y. Lahnech, M. Siegel, and G. Holzmann. Implementing Statecharts in Promela/SPIN. In Workshop on Industrial-Strength Formal Specifications Techniques (WIFT’98), Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1998. IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. The Object Management Group. OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, September 2001. Version 1.4, http://www.omg.org.

  17. T. Schäfer, A. Knapp, and S. Merz. Model Checking UML State Machines and Collaborations. In Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, volume 47, pages 1–13. Elsevier Science B. V., 2001.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Adelaide University, 5005, SA, Australia

    Yan Jin & Robert Esser

Authors
  1. Yan Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Esser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jörn W. Janneck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, 93106, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

    Mary Hegarty

  2. School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Monash University, Clayton Campus, Wellington Road, 3800, Victoria, Australia

    Bernd Meyer

  3. Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Auburn University, 107 Dunstan Hall, 36849, Auburn, AL, USA

    N. Hari Narayanan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Jin, Y., Esser, R., Janneck, J.W. (2002). Describing the Syntax and Semantics of UML Statecharts in a Heterogeneous Modelling Environment. In: Hegarty, M., Meyer, B., Narayanan, N.H. (eds) Diagrammatic Representation and Inference. Diagrams 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2317. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46037-3_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46037-3_30

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43561-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46037-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation