Three Scenarios for combining UML and SDL96

Verschaeve, Kurt; Ek, Anders

doi:10.1016/b978-044450228-5/50015-1

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a similar work [17] the author proposes a mapping using the incremental twoway translation between UML and SDL concepts. The translation of a subset of UML state diagrams to the SDL ones proceeds by flattening a fragment of nested states.…”

Section: Motivation and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Formal Semantics of UML StateCharts by Means of Timed Petri Nets

Hammal

2005

Formal Techniques for Networked and Distributed Systems - FORTE 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper deals with the formalization of Unified Modeling language (UML) by means of Petri Nets. In order to improve the semantics of UML dynamic diagrams, we define a new method of embedding UML StateCharts into Interval Timed Petri Nets (ITPN). This method considers all kinds of hierarchical states together with the most of pseudo-states like history ones. Besides consistencies analysis, time intervals of ITPN model well event generation and dispatching delays making it possible to achieve performance and time properties analysis of complex systems.

show abstract

Section: Motivation and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Formal Semantics of UML StateCharts by Means of Timed Petri Nets

Hammal

2005

Formal Techniques for Networked and Distributed Systems - FORTE 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ITU-T profile describes constraints and semantics of SDL by informal mapping rules. Besides many other conceptual issues, this is a major difference between the ITU-T work and the profile described in this thesis.In [VE99], there are several scenarios presented for combining SDL-96 and UML 1.3 in which a mapping between the two notations is defined including behavior models. Very similar, the use of UML 1.3 and SDL-96 is described by a bidirectional mapping in [Ver01a,Ver01b].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [VE99], there are several scenarios presented for combining SDL-96 and UML 1.3 in which a mapping between the two notations is defined including behavior models. Very similar, the use of UML 1.3 and SDL-96 is described by a bidirectional mapping in [Ver01a,Ver01b].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A UML Profile for Communicating Systems

Werner

Kraatz

Hogrefe

2006

System Analysis and Modeling: Language Profiles

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This thesis presents a new Unified Modeling Language 2 (UML AcknowledgmentsI am grateful to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Hogrefe for many fruitful and helpful discussions in the stimulating atmosphere of his research group. I also thank my co-supervisor Prof. Dr. Grabowski for accepting the task of examining this thesis.Many thanks go out to all my colleagues from the Institute of Informatics at the University of Göttingen. Especially, I am grateful to my colleagues Michael Ebner, Rene Soltwisch and Xiaoming Fu for useful and valuable discussions on formal modeling techniques.I also thank my students Julia Woch and Sebastian Kraatz for contributing to this work with their considerable efforts. This thesis would not be in its current shape without the comments of numerous people. I thank Omar Alfandi, Mohammed Alfandi, Andrea Hellner, Ingo Juchem, Helmut Neukirchen, Katharina and Peter Samow for reading this thesis, finding errors and providing helpful suggestions for improving this thesis. List of Figures IntroductionDue to the huge complexity of modern software systems, it is required to specify precisely what a software component should do and how it should behave. If the final implementation deviates from the expected behavior, its use or its communication with other software components may fail. In a software development process, the specification describes the expected behavior of the software; the description describes the actual behavior of that software. The actual behavior is the implementation. A specification is a technical contract between developers and users or clients. It is mainly intended to provide them with a mutual understanding of the software and is used to guide the development and the use. This also applies for the development of communicating protocols as they are merely implemented in software.Today, most protocol specifications are carried out in natural, informal language because it is easy to understand. However, experience has shown that specifications in natural languages can be vague, verbose and ambiguous. That means they can be interpreted in more than one way. A specification is formal if its meaning (its semantics) is unambiguous. Special languages, known as formal description techniques (FDTs), have been developed for the unambiguous specification and description of software. Hence, FDTs are distinguished from formal languages by having a formal syntax and a formal semantics. This stands in contrast to (semi-)formal languages such as Java or C++ which only have a formal syntax. FDTs are based on rigorous formal methods and offer the means for defining unambiguous specifications of network services and protocols in a more comprehensive and precise way than those done in natural language. In addition, they provide a basis for analysis, verification and validation of a specification before protocols are implemented. They can be used at the requirement stage to capture the user requirements. During the stage of analysis and design, FDTs can be used to describe abstract...

show abstract

“…Many efforts [11] were devoted to combine UML generality and type-level power with SDL rigor and precise communication specification. SDL-2000 is the outgrowth of these efforts.…”

Section: Sdl-2000 Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative case study in SDL and UML

Leblanc¹,

Ober

Proceedings 33rd International Conference on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems TOOLS 33

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Choosing the right modeling language for developing a system may be a difficult task, which might influence on the cost and quality of the whole subsequent development process. UML and SDL are two of the most widely used modeling languages. The purpose of this paper is to help the modeler decide which of UML and SDL is more appropriate for the particular problem he has to solve, depending on its characteristics. This paper is rooted in a case study, a simplified switching system that we have modeled in SDL-96, UML and SDL-2000. The three models developed in parallel offer a basis for comparing the three languages. The SDL-2000 case study presents an additional interest, since it is one of the first examples of a recently released standard and no example is provided to illustrate it. Based on the parallel case studies we discuss the fitness of SDL-96, UML and SDL-2000 for specific application domains.

show abstract

Three Scenarios for combining UML and SDL96

Cited by 7 publications

References 1 publication

A Formal Semantics of UML StateCharts by Means of Timed Petri Nets

A Formal Semantics of UML StateCharts by Means of Timed Petri Nets

A UML Profile for Communicating Systems

Comparative case study in SDL and UML

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About