AuRUS: explaining the validation of UML/OCL conceptual schemas

The validation and the verification of conceptual schemas have attracted a lot of interest during the last years, and several tools have been developed to automate this process as much as possible. This is achieved, in general, by assessing whether the schema satisfies different kinds of desirable properties which ensure that the schema is correct. In this paper we describe AuRUS, a tool we have developed to analyze UML/OCL conceptual schemas and to explain their (in)correctness. When a property is satisfied, AuRUS provides a sample instantiation of the schema showing a particular situation where the property holds. When it is not, AuRUS provides an explanation for such unsatisfiability, i.e., a set of integrity constraints which is in contradiction with the property.

[1]  Robert Wille,et al.  Debugging of inconsistent UML/OCL models , 2012, 2012 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE).

[2]  Jeffrey D. Ullman,et al.  Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems, Volume II , 1988, Principles of computer science series.

[3]  Karem A. Sakallah,et al.  On Finding All Minimally Unsatisfiable Subformulas , 2005, SAT.

[4]  Zahir Tari,et al.  On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2008 , 2008, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[5]  Hendrik Decker,et al.  How to Tackle Schema Validation by View Updating , 1996, EDBT.

[6]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Debugging Incoherent Terminologies , 2007, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[7]  Karem A. Sakallah,et al.  Algorithms for Computing Minimal Unsatisfiable Subsets of Constraints , 2007, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[8]  Manuel Clavel,et al.  ITP/OCL: A Rewriting-Based Validation Tool for UML+OCL Static Class Diagrams , 2006, AMAST.

[9]  Dan Ioan Chiorean,et al.  Ensuring UML Models Consistency Using the OCL Environment , 2004, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[10]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Tractable Reasoning and Efficient Query Answering in Description Logics: The DL-Lite Family , 2007, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[11]  J. W. LLOYD,et al.  Making Prolog more Expressive , 1984, J. Log. Program..

[12]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Terminological Reasoning is Inherently Intractable , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Tharam S. Dillon,et al.  On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems, OTM 2010 , 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[14]  N. J.L.deSiqueira,et al.  Explanation-Based Generalisation of Failures , 1988, ECAI.

[15]  Jeffrey D. Ullman,et al.  Principles Of Database And Knowledge-Base Systems , 1979 .

[16]  Serge Abiteboul,et al.  Foundations of Databases , 1994 .

[17]  Martin Gogolla,et al.  Evaluating and Debugging OCL Expressions in UML Models , 2012, TAP@TOOLS.

[18]  Jeff Z. Pan,et al.  Finding Maximally Satisfiable Terminologies for the Description Logic ALC , 2006, AAAI.

[19]  Martin Gogolla,et al.  Validating UML and OCL models in USE by automatic snapshot generation , 2005, Software & Systems Modeling.

[20]  Achim D. Brucker,et al.  Efficient analysis of pattern-based constraint specifications , 2010, Software & Systems Modeling.

[21]  Stefan Schlobach,et al.  Non-Standard Reasoning Services for the Debugging of Description Logic Terminologies , 2003, IJCAI.

[22]  Guillem Rull Fort.  Validation of mappings between data schemas , 2011 .

[23]  Ernest Teniente,et al.  Verification and Validation of UML Conceptual Schemas with OCL Constraints , 2012, TSEM.

[24]  Achim D. Brucker,et al.  HOL-OCL: A Formal Proof Environment for UML/OCL , 2008, FASE.

[25]  James Bailey,et al.  Discovery of Minimal Unsatisfiable Subsets of Constraints Using Hitting Set Dualization , 2005, PADL.

[26]  P. M. Wognum,et al.  Diagnosing and Solving Over-Determined Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 1993, IJCAI.

[27]  Ernest Teniente,et al.  Checking query containment with the CQC method , 2005, Data Knowl. Eng..

[28]  Ernest Teniente,et al.  Computing explanations for unlively queries in databases , 2007, CIKM '07.

[29]  Éric Grégoire,et al.  On Approaches to Explaining Infeasibility of Sets of Boolean Clauses , 2008, 2008 20th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence.

[30]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Validating SAT solvers using an independent resolution-based checker: practical implementations and other applications , 2003, 2003 Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition.

[31]  Robert Wille,et al.  Encoding OCL Data Types for SAT-Based Verification of UML/OCL Models , 2011, TAP@TOOLS.

[32]  Jordi Cabot,et al.  UMLtoCSP: a tool for the formal verification of UML/OCL models using constraint programming , 2007, ASE.

[33]  Paola Inverardi,et al.  Preface to Fundamental approaches to software engineering , 2008 .

[34]  Ernest Teniente,et al.  AuRUS: Automated Reasoning on UML/OCL Schemas , 2010, ER.

[35]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Explanation in the DL-LiteFamily of Description Logics , 2008, OTM Conferences.

[36]  Ernest Teniente,et al.  Providing Explanations for Database Schema Validation , 2008, DEXA.

[37]  Martin Gogolla,et al.  Expressing UML Class Diagrams Properties with OCL , 2002, Object Modeling with the OCL.

[38]  Perdita Stevens,et al.  Modelling Recursive Calls with UML State Diagrams , 2003, FASE.