Using the Base Semantics given by fUML for Verification

Alessandro Gerlinger Romero, Klaus Schneider, Maurício Gonçalves Vieira Ferreira

2014

Abstract

The lack of formal foundations of UML results in imprecise models since UML only defines graphical notations, but not their formal semantics. However, in safety-critical applications, formal semantics is a requirement for verification. Semantics for the key parts of activities and classes of UML is defined by the semantics of a foundational subset for executable UML models (fUML). Moreover, the base semantics given by fUML defines the formal semantics of UML. In this paper, we evaluate a subset of the base semantics given by fUML covering its formal definition and its use for verification. From the practical perspective, we show with a simple example how the base semantics can support formal verification through theorem proving. The initial results show that the base semantics, when mature, can play an important role in the formal verification of UML models.

References

  1. Abdelhalim, I., Schneider, S., and Treharne, H. (2012). An optimization approach for effective formalized fUML model checking. In Eleftherakis, G., Hinchey, M., and Holcombe, M., editors, Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM), volume 7504 of LNCS, pages 248-262, Thessaloniki, Greece. Springer.
  2. Benyahia, A., Cuccuru, A., Taha, S., Terrier, F., Boulanger, F., and Grard, S. (2010). Extending the standard execution model of UML for real-time systems. In Hinchey, M., Kleinjohann, B., Kleinjohann, L., Lindsay, P., Rammig, F., Timmis, J., and Wolf, M., editors, Distributed and Parallel Embedded Systems (DIPES), volume 329 of IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, pages 43-54, Brisbane, Australia. Springer.
  3. Bock, C. and Gruninger, M. (2005). PSL: A semantic domain for flow models. Software and Systems Modeling, 4(2):209-231.
  4. Combemale, B., Hardebolle, C., Jacquet, C., Boulanger, F., and Baudry, B. (2013). Bridging the chasm between executable metamodeling and models of computation. In Czarnecki, K. and Hedin, G., editors, Software Language Engineering, volume 7745 of LNCS, pages 184-203, Dresden, Germany. Springer.
  5. Derler, P., Lee, E., and Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A. (2012). Modeling cyber-physical systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(1):13-28.
  6. Fecher, H., Schnborn, J., Kyas, M., and de Roever, W.-P. (2005). 29 new unclarities in the semantics of UML 2.0 state machines. In Lau, K.-K. and Banach, R., editors, International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods (ICFEM), volume 3785 of LNCS, pages 52- 65, Manchester, England, UK. Springer.
  7. Fikes, R., , and McGuinness, D. (2001). An axiomatic semantics for RDF, RDF-S, and DAML+OIL (march 2001).
  8. Gerlinger Romero, A. (2013a). Files submitted to OMG. http://es.cs.uni-kl.de/ people/romero/fUMLOMGIssue20130630.zip Access date: 28.Oct.2013.
  9. Gerlinger Romero, A. (2013b). Support files for the modelsward2014. http://es.cs.unikl.de/people/romero/modelsward2014.zip Access date: 28.Oct.2013.
  10. Gerlinger Romero, A., Schneider, K., and Gonc¸alves Vieira Ferreira, M. (2013). Towards the applicability of Alf to model cyber-physical systems. In International Workshop on Cyber-Physical Systems (IWCPS), pages 1469-1476, Krakw, Poland. IEEE Computer Society.
  11. Graves, H. (2012). Integrating reasoning with SysML. In INCOSE International Symposium, Rome, Italy.
  12. Grnniger, H., Rei, D., and Rumpe, B. (2010). Towards a semantics of activity diagrams with semantic variation points. In Petriu, D., Rouquette, N., and Haugen, O., editors, Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS), volume 6394 of LNCS, pages 331-345, Oslo, Norway. Springer.
  13. Hoare, C. (1969). An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Communications of the ACM (CACM), 12(10):576-580.
  14. ISO (2007). Information technology - Common Logic (CL): a framework for a family of logic-based languages.
  15. Jarraya, Y., Debbabi, M., and Bentahar, J. (2009). On the meaning of SysML activity diagrams. In Engineering of Computer Based Systems (ECBS), pages 95-105, San Francisco, CA, USA. IEEE Computer Society.
  16. Knieke, C., Schindler, B., Goltz, U., and Rausch, A. (2012). Defining domain specific operational semantics for activity diagrams. Technical Report IfI-12-04, TU Clausthal, Clausthal, Germany.
  17. Maoz, S., Ringert, J., and Rumpe, B. (2011). An operational semantics for activity diagrams using SMV. Aachener Informatik-Berichte AIB-2011-07, Department of Computer Science, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
  18. Mossakowski, T. (2013). HETS site for HETS - v0.99, 02 Mai, 2013. http://www.informatik.unibremen.de/agbkb/forschung/formal methods/CoFI/ hets/index e.htm Access date: 22.Jun.2013.
  19. NIST (2013). PSL psl outer core V2.1. http:// www.mel.nist.gov/psl/download/psl outer core.clf Access date: 22.Jun.2013.
  20. OMG (2009). Semantics of a foundational subset for executable UML models, V FTF beta 2. http://www.omg.org/spec/FUML/ Access date: 09.Feb.2010.
  21. (2011). OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure, V2.4.1.
  22. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/. Access date: 14.Apr.2013.
  23. OMG (2012). Semantics of a foundational subset for executable UML models, v1.1 RTF beta. http://www.omg.org/spec/FUML/. Access date: 24.Apr.2013.
  24. OMG (2013a). Concrete Syntax for UML Action Language, V1.0.1 Beta. http://www.omg.org/spec/ALF/. Access date: 27.Apr.2013.
  25. OMG (2013b). Precise Semantics of UML Composite Structures - Request For Proposal - OMG Document: ad/2011-12-07. http://www.omg.org/cgibin/doc?ad/11-12-07/. Access date: 25.Aug.2013.
  26. Perseil, I. (2011). ALF formal. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering, 7(4):325-326.
  27. Plotkin, G. (1981). A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report FN-19, DAIMI, rhus, Denmark.
  28. Schulz, S. (2013). Eprover site for eprover - E 1.6 Tiger Hill. http://www4.informatik.tumuenchen.de/s˜chulz/E/E.html. Access date: 22.Jun.2013.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Gerlinger Romero A., Schneider K. and Gonçalves Vieira Ferreira M. (2014). Using the Base Semantics given by fUML for Verification . In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD, ISBN 978-989-758-007-9, pages 5-16. DOI: 10.5220/0004662400050016


in Bibtex Style

@conference{modelsward14,
author={Alessandro Gerlinger Romero and Klaus Schneider and Maurício Gonçalves Vieira Ferreira},
title={Using the Base Semantics given by fUML for Verification},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,},
year={2014},
pages={5-16},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0004662400050016},
isbn={978-989-758-007-9},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,
TI - Using the Base Semantics given by fUML for Verification
SN - 978-989-758-007-9
AU - Gerlinger Romero A.
AU - Schneider K.
AU - Gonçalves Vieira Ferreira M.
PY - 2014
SP - 5
EP - 16
DO - 10.5220/0004662400050016