Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

UML behavioral consistency checking using instantiable Petri nets

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Model-driven engineering (MDE) development methods are gaining increasing attention from industry. In MDE, the model is the primary artifact and serves several goals, including code generation, requirements traceability, and model-based testing. MDE thus enables cost-effective building of models versus direct coding of an application. Thus model-based formal verification of behavioral consistency is desirable as it helps improve model quality. Our approach is based on translation of a UML model to instantiable Petri nets (IPN). This formalism is based on the semantics of Petri nets, but introduces the concepts of type and instance. This allows one to accurately capture these concepts in UML models. IPN support hierarchical descriptions natively, and use the notion of transition synchronization for composition of behaviors. This is a general and powerful mechanism borrowed from process algebra. We show that IPN allow one to adequately address the challenges of translation from UML for analysis purposes. The approach has been implemented and experimental results are presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Broy M, Crane M, Dingel J, Hartman A, Rumpe B, Selic B (2007) 2nd UML 2 Semantics Symposium: Formal Semantics for UML. Models Softw Eng 318–323

  2. Clarke EM, Allen Emerson E, Sifakis J (2007) Turing award for their original and continuing research on model checking

  3. Ciardo G, Lüttgen G, Miner AS (2007) Exploiting interleaving semantics in symbolic state-space generation. Formal Methods Syst Des 31(1): 63–100

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Campos J, Merseguer J (2006) On the integration of uml and petri nets in software development. In: Donatelli S, Thiagarajan PS (eds) 27th ICATPN— Petri Nets and other models of concurrency, vol 4024. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Donatelli S, Franceschinis G (1996) The psr methodology: Integrating hardware and software models. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on application and theory of petri nets. Springer, London, pp 133–152

  6. Damm W, Hermanns H (eds) (2007) In: Computer aided verification, 19th international conference, CAV 2007, Berlin, Germany, July 3–7, 2007, Proceedings, vol 4590 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin

  7. Engels G, Heckel R, Küster JM (2001) Rule-based specification of behavioral consistency based on the UML meta-model. In: Gogolla M, Kobryn C (eds) 4th international conference on the unified modeling language, modeling languages, concepts and tools, vol 2185. Springer, London, pp 272–286

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Eshuis R (2006) Symbolic model checking of uml activity diagrams. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 15(1): 1–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gupta A, McMillan K, Fu Z (2007) Automated assumption generation for compositional verification. Comput Aided Verif 420–432

  10. Hamez A, Hillah L, Kordon F, Linard A, Paviot-Adet E, Renault X, Thierry-Mieg Y (2006) New features in cpn-ami 3: focusing on the analysis of complex distributed systems. In: ACSD. IEEE Computer Society, pp 273–275

  11. Hu Z, Shatz SM (2006) Explicit modeling of semantics associated with composite states in UML statecharts. Autom Softw Eng 13(4): 423–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hailpern B, Tarr P (2006) Model-driven development: The good, the bad and the ugly. IBM Syst J 45(3): 451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Milner R (1999) Communicating and mobile systems: the Pi-Calculus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Murata T (1989) Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. In: Proceedings of the IEEE. NewsletterInfo: 33Published as proceedings of the IEEE, vol 77, number 4. pp 541–580

  15. OMG. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure - Version 2.1.2 formal/07-11-02. OMG, November 2007

  16. Yao S, Shatz SM (2006) Consistency checking of UML dynamic models based on petri net techniques. In: CIC ’06: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on computing. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 289–297

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université P. and M. Curie, LIP6 - CNRS UMR 7606 - 4 Place Jussieu, Paris, France

    Yann Thierry-Mieg & Lom-Messan Hillah

Authors
  1. Yann Thierry-Mieg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lom-Messan Hillah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yann Thierry-Mieg.

Additional information

This work has been partially supported by the ModelPlex European integrated project FP6-IP 034081 (Modeling Solutions for Complex Systems).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thierry-Mieg, Y., Hillah, LM. UML behavioral consistency checking using instantiable Petri nets. Innovations Syst Softw Eng 4, 293–300 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-008-0065-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-008-0065-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation