Abstract
The article below presents the insights gained during a number of years of research dedicated to the formalisation of the Unified Modeling Language.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
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
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)
Rumbaugh J.E., Blaha M.R., Premerlani W.J., Eddy F., Lorensen W.E.: Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey (1991)
Jacobson I.: Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc., Redwood City (2004)
Harel D.: Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comput. Progr. 8, 231–274 (1987)
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)
Jacobson I., Booch G., Rumbaugh J.: The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc., Boston (1999)
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
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)
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)
Richters, M.: A Precise Approach to Validating UML Models and OCL Constraints. PhD thesis, Universität Bremen, Logos, Berlin, BISS Monographs, No. 14 (2002)
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)
Evermann J.: A cognitive semantics for the association construct. Requir. Eng. 13, 167–186 (2008)
Cook, S.: UML2.0—Trying to have it both ways, pp. 4–7 of [39]
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
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
Object Management Group: Getting Specifications and Products. Technical report, OMG. http://www.omg.org/gettingstarted/specsandprods.htm (2009). Retrieved 2010-07-01
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
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)
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)
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)
Seehusen F.: Specifying enforcable high level policies with UML sequence diagrams. Telektronikk 105, 126–134 (2009)
Harel D., Maoz S.: Assert and negate revisited: modal semantics for UML sequence diagrams. Softw. Syst. Model. 7, 237–252 (2008)
von der Beeck M.: A structured operational semantics for UML-statecharts. Softw. Syst. Model. 1, 130–141 (2002)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Ross D.T.: Applications and extensions of SADT. IEEE Comput. 18, 25–34 (1985)
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
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
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-011-0207-y