Filmstripping and Unrolling: A Comparison of Verification Approaches for UML and OCL Behavioral Models

Hilken, Frank; Niemann, Philipp; Gogolla, Martin; Wille, Robert

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09099-3_8

Cited by 15 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the "film-stripping" approach by Gogolla et al [c30,c36] a uniform technique for representing behavioural system evolution is used: System behaviour is captured by sequences of snapshots of system states, i.e., object diagrams, linked together by change information in particular recording how the objects evolve. Consistency checks could then be performed, e.g., in the USE tool [c29].…”

Section: Consistency Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-view Consistency in UML: A Survey

Knapp

Mossakowski

2018

Graph Transformation, Specifications, and Nets

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study the question of consistency of multi-view models in UML and OCL. We first critically survey the large amount of literature that already exists. We find that only limited subsets of the UML/OCL have been covered so far and that consistency checks mostly only cover structural aspects, whereas only few methods also address behaviour. We also give a classification of different techniques for multi-view UML/OCL consistency: consistency rules, the system model approach, dynamic meta-modelling, universal logic, and heterogeneous transformation. Finally, we elaborate cornerstones of a comprehensive distributed semantics approach to consistency using OMG's Distributed Ontology, Model and Specification Language (DOL). consistency problem has already been stated in the early UML days [5,13,14], and has been addressed quite intensively in the literature. In particular, several categorisations for partitioning the consistency problem have been designed: Engels et al. [c26] suggest to distinguish between horizontal (or intra-model) and vertical (or inter-model) consistency, i.e., whether the views are on the same level of abstraction; as well as syntactic (structural well-formedness of the abstract syntax) and semantic consistency (compatibility of behaviour). Mens et al. [29] focus more on the intention of sub-languages and give a classification into structural vs. behavioral diagrams and their use on the specification vs. instance level. Allaki et al.[1] combine these schemes into a typological frame of monovs. multi-diagram, specification vs. instance, and syntactic vs. semantic, and furthermore add a taxonomy of consistency problems in a terminological dimension, mentioning incompleteness, ambiguity, contradiction, incompatibility, and anomaly. From a verification perspective, Hilken et al.[18] present a list of structural and behavioural verification tasks for UML models considering besides consistency the categories of consequence, independence, executability, and reachability. A structural verification task considers a single (integrated) system state only, whereas a behavioural task pertains to a sequence of states. In contrast to [c46], here "[c]onsistency problems are structural problems and do not involve behaviour" [18, p. 122].The large number of approaches to multi-view consistency in the literature has also been reviewed and summarised [3,20,28,40,41,42]. In particular, Torre et al. [40,41] systematically survey existing consistency rules. They find that most rules are syntactic (88.21% in [40] and 81.89% according to the more comprehensive [41]), and that most of the rules are related to class diagrams (71.58%), sequence diagrams (47.37%), and state machine diagrams (42.11%). Moreover, they deplore that "it appears that researchers tend to discuss very similar consistency rules, over and over again", and conclude that "much more work is needed to develop consistency rules for all 14 UML diagrams, in all dimensions of consistency (e.g., semantic and syntactic on the one hand, horizontal, vertical and e...

show abstract

Section: Consistency Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-view Consistency in UML: A Survey

Knapp

Mossakowski

2018

Graph Transformation, Specifications, and Nets

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…UML and OCL are rich languages filled with features for all kinds of purposes. Trying to support all of them is not only a lot of work, but also reduces the efficiency of the tools, the more features they support [5]. Therefore, it is common practice to restrict UML and OCL verification engines to a subset of the languages.…”

Section: Analysis Of Potential Modeling Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

User Assistance Characteristics of the USE Model Checking Tool

Hilken

Gogolla

2017

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a widely used general purpose modeling language. Together with the Object Constraint Language (OCL), formal models can be described by defining the structure and behavior with UML and additional OCL constraints. In the development process for formal models, it is important to make sure that these models are (a) correct, i.e. consistent and complete, and (b) testable in the sense that the developer is able to interactively check model properties. The USE tool (UML-based Specification Environment) allows both characteristics to be studied. We demonstrate how the tool supports modelers to analyze, validate and verify UML and OCL models via the use of several graphical means that assist the modeler in interpreting and visualizing formal model descriptions. In particular, we discuss how the so-called USE model validator plugin is integrated into the USE environment in order to allow non domain experts to use it and construct object models that help to verify properties like model consistency.Comment: In Proceedings F-IDE 2016, arXiv:1701.0792

show abstract

“…Some parts for a verification task have to be performed manually like rewriting the OCL constraints and formulating the exact verification task. For detailed comparison of the filmstrip model approach and the unrolling approach which is the underlying concept of our symbolic formulation the reader is referred to [21].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verifying the structure and behavior in UML/OCL models using satisfiability solvers

Przigoda

Soeken

Wille

et al. 2016

IET cyber-phys. syst.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the ever increasing complexity of embedded and cyber-physical systems, corresponding design solutions relying on modelling languages such as Unified Modelling Language (UML)/Object Constraint Language (OCL) find increasing attention. Due to the recent success of formal verification techniques, UML/OCL models also allow to verify and/or check certain properties of a given model in early stages of the design phase. To this end, different approaches for verification and validation have been proposed. In this work, the authors motivate, define, and describe different verification tasks for structural, as well as behavioural UML/OCL models that can be solved using solvers for Boolean satisfiability. They describe how these verification tasks can be translated into a symbolic formulation which is passed to off-the-shelf solvers afterwards. The obtained results enable designers to draw conclusions about the correctness of the considered model.

show abstract

Filmstripping and Unrolling: A Comparison of Verification Approaches for UML and OCL Behavioral Models

Cited by 15 publications

References 21 publications

Multi-view Consistency in UML: A Survey

Multi-view Consistency in UML: A Survey

User Assistance Characteristics of the USE Model Checking Tool

Verifying the structure and behavior in UML/OCL models using satisfiability solvers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About