Abstract
UML Interactions represent one of the three different behavior kinds of the UML. In general, they specify the exchange of messages among parts of a system. Although UML Interactions can reside on different level of abstractions, they seem to be sufficiently elaborated for a higher-level of abstraction where they are used for sketching the communication among parts. Its metamodel reveals some fuzziness and imprecision where definitions should be accurate and concise, though.
In this paper, we propose improvements to the UML Interactions’ metamodel for Message arguments and Loop CombinedFragments that make them more versatile. We will justify the needs for the improvements by precisely showing the shortcomings of the related parts of the metamodel. We demonstrate the expressiveness of the improvements by applying them to examples that current Interactions definition handles awkwardly.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
OMG UML: OMGT Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure, Version 2.4.1, #formal/2011-08-06 (2011), http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/
Grabowski, J., Rudolph, E.: Message Sequence Chart (MSC) - A Survey of the new CCITT Language for the Description of Traces within Communication Systems. CCITT SDL Newsletter (16), 30–48 (1993)
OMG UTP: OMG UML Testing Profile (UTP), Version 1.2, #ptc/2012-09-13 (2012), http://www.omg.org/spec/UTP
Baker, P., Dai, Z.R., Grabowski, J., Haugen, Ø., Schieferdecker, I., Williams, C.: Model-driven testing – using the UML testing profile. Springer (2007)
Haugen, Ø.: Comparing UML 2.0 interactions and MSC-2000. In: Amyot, D., Williams, A.W. (eds.) SAM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3319, pp. 65–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Haugen, Ø., Stølen, K.: STAIRS – steps to analyze interactions with refinement semantics. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 388–402. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Haugen, Ø., Husa, K.E., Runde, R.K., Stølen, K.: Why timed sequence diagrams require three-event semantics. In: Leue, S., Systä, T.J. (eds.) Scenarios. LNCS, vol. 3466, pp. 1–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Haugen, Ø., Husa, K.E., Runde, R.K., Stølen, K.: STAIRS towards formal design with sequence diagrams. Journal of Software and Systems Modeling, 349–458 (2005)
Runde, R.K., Haugen, Ø., Stølen, K.: Refining UML interactions with underspecification and nondeterminism. Nordic Journal of Computing 12(2), 157–188 (2005)
Lund, M.S., Stølen, K.: A fully general operational semantics for UML 2.0 sequence diagrams with potential and mandatory choice. In: Misra, J., Nipkow, T., Sekerinski, E. (eds.) FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4085, pp. 380–395. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Störrle, H.: Semantics of interactions in UML 2.0. In: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments (2003)
Störrle, H.: Trace Semantics of UML 2.0 Interactions. Technical report, University of Munich (2004)
Knapp, A.: A Formal Semantics for UML Interactions. In: France, R.B. (ed.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 116–130. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Cengarle, M., Knapp, A.: UML 2.0 Interactions: Semantics and Refinement. In: Jürjens, J., Fernà ndez, E.B., France, R., Rumpe, B. (eds.) 3rd Int. Workshop on Critical Systems Development with UML (CSDUML 2004), pp. 85–99 (2004)
Li, M., Ruan, Y.: Approach to Formalizing UML Sequence Diagrams. In: Proc. 3rd International Workshop on Intelligent Systems and Applications (ISA), pp. 28–29 (2011)
Shen, H., Virani, A., Niu, J.: Formalize UML 2 Sequence Diagrams. In: Proc. 11th IEEE High Assurance Systems Engineering Symposium (HASE), pp. 437–440 (2008)
Störrle, H.: Assert, Negate and Refinement in UML-22 Interactions. In: Jürjens, J., Rumpe, B., France, R., Fernandez, E.B. (eds.) Proc. Wsh. Critical Systems Development with UML (CSDUML 2003), San Francisco (2003)
Harel, D., Maoz, S.: Assert and negate revisited: modal semantics for UML sequence diagrams. In: Proc. International Workshop on Scenarios and State Machines: Models, Algorithms, and Tools (SCESM 2006) (2006)
Knapp, A., Wuttke, J.: Model Checking of UML 2.0 Interactions. In: Kühne, T. (ed.) MoDELS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4364, pp. 42–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Wendland, M.-F., Hoffmann, A., Schieferdecker, I.: Fokus!MBT – A Multi-Paradigmatic Test Modeling Environment. To appear in Proceedings of: Academics Tooling with Eclipse Workshop (ACME), In Conjunction with the Joint Conferences ECMFA/ECSA/ECOOP, Montpellier, France (2013) ISBN 978-1-4503-2036-8
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wendland, MF., Schneider, M., Haugen, Ø. (2013). Evolution of the UML Interactions Metamodel. In: Moreira, A., Schätz, B., Gray, J., Vallecillo, A., Clarke, P. (eds) Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. MODELS 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8107. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41533-3_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41533-3_25
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-41532-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-41533-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)