A Model Checking Based Approach for Containment Checking of UML Sequence Diagrams

Muram, Faiz Ul; Tran, Huy; Zdun, Uwe

doi:10.1109/apsec.2016.021

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our earlier work, we have investigated the containment checking problem for various behavioural models. Particularly, our previous research not only supports automated transformation of activity diagrams [Muram et al 2014], sequence diagrams [Muram et al 2016], and BPMN process, choreography and collaboration diagrams into equivalent formal specifications and consistency constraints, but also interprets the counterexamples for locating the cause(s) of inconsistencies and their resolutions 2016;. Besides model checking techniques, graph-based solutions for addressing the problem of containment checking are also investigated .…”

Section: Behavioural Consistency Checkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This can be done using either manual mapping of input models into formal descriptions and consistency constraints (e.g., specifying the transformation rules) or automated techniques. In [Muram et al 2014;2016] we have introduced the transformation rules grounded on formal expressions that can support the automated transformation of the high-level behaviour models into design constraints and low-level behaviour models into formal descriptions. In particular, the behaviour models are created in Eclipse Papyrus 1 and the Eclipse Xtend framework 2 is used to realise the transformation of behaviour models to formal descriptions and design constraints.…”

Section: Graph-based / Model Checker Based Containment Checkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, an efficient analysis of the generated counterexample is supported in our proposed solution that provides the concrete information about the causes of inconsistencies (i.e. missing and misplacement of elements) and their resolutions 2016;. The containment relationship to be validated by model checking is defined in the following Equation 1:…”

Section: Graph-based / Model Checker Based Containment Checkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to support containment checking, we conducted a systematic literature review on behaviour consistency checking research . In addition, we have investigated the containment relationship for various behaviour models in our previous work, including activity diagrams [Muram et al 2014;, sequence diagrams [Muram et al 2016] and Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) [Group 2011a] process, choreography and collaboration models . We have also investigated possible solutions that are based on model-checking techniques [Muram et al 2014;2016; and graph algorithms .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, we have investigated the containment relationship for various behaviour models in our previous work, including activity diagrams [Muram et al 2014;, sequence diagrams [Muram et al 2016] and Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) [Group 2011a] process, choreography and collaboration models . We have also investigated possible solutions that are based on model-checking techniques [Muram et al 2014;2016; and graph algorithms . The major contributions of this paper can be summarised as follows: -For modelling and analysing the behaviours of architectural patterns, we illustrate the containment checking solution using UML2 sequence diagrams [Group 2011b].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Towards Containment Checking of Behaviour in Architectural Patterns

Muram

Tran

Zdun

2017

Proceedings of the 22nd European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The behaviour of architectural patterns must be consistent in terms of the artefacts produced in the various activities of the software development process, such as requirements, software architecture, detailed design and implementation. In this context, high-level models are mainly used to convey the core concepts or principles of the reality they represent in an abstract and/or concise way (e.g., requirements or architecture design). If a specific architectural pattern like model-view-controller is used in such high-level models, the corresponding detailed designs and implementations are also based on the particular pattern. Low-level or detailed design models are used to provide a (more) precise specification of the source code. However, because of the involvement of different stakeholders and independent evolution of software systems, inconsistencies might occur in architectural patterns' behaviour at those different abstraction levels. Previous studies have not considered the checking of architectural patterns' behaviour. In this paper, we present a solution to the containment checking problem that verifies whether the behaviour described by a low-level model still is consistent with the pattern specifications provided in its high-level counterparts. Here, the interactions between architectural pattern elements are captured using UML2 sequence diagrams. This paper also aims at providing more informative and comprehensive feedbacks to the stakeholders for identification of violation causes and their resolutions. The applicability of the proposed solution is demonstrated by applying it on three architectural patterns, namely model-view-controller, layers, and pipe and filter. The proposed solutions can also be applied to other types of behaviour models, such as state machines, activity diagrams and BPMN models, as well as other architectural patterns. CCS Concepts: •Software and its engineering → Software architectures;

show abstract

Section: Behavioural Consistency Checkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Graph-based / Model Checker Based Containment Checkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Graph-based / Model Checker Based Containment Checkingmentioning

confidence: 99%