Interpretation of History Pseudostates in Orthogonal States of UML State Machines

Inconsistencies and semantic variation points of the UML specification are a source of problems during code generation and execution of behavioral models. We discuss the interpretation of history concepts of UML 2.x state machines. Especially, history in complex states with orthogonal regions was considered. The clarification of this interpretation was proposed and explained by an example. The history issues and other variation points had to be resolved within the Framework for eXecutable UML (FXU). The FXU was the first framework supporting all elements of UML 2.x behavioral state machines in code generation and execution for C# code.

[1]  Jean-Marc Jézéquel,et al.  Code generation from UML models with semantic variation points , 2005, MoDELS'05.

[2]  David Clark,et al.  Direct Semantics of Extended State Machines , 2007, J. Object Technol..

[3]  Bernhard Rumpe,et al.  «UML»’99 — The Unified Modeling Language , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[4]  Willem P. de Roever,et al.  29 New Unclarities in the Semantics of UML 2.0 State Machines , 2005, ICFEM.

[5]  Stephan Merz,et al.  Model Checking - Timed UML State Machines and Collaborations , 2002, FTRTFT.

[6]  Jiro Tanaka,et al.  Mapping UML statecharts to java code , 2004, IASTED Conf. on Software Engineering.

[7]  Martin Gogolla,et al.  On translating UML models into graph transformation systems , 2006, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[8]  Ajitha Rajan,et al.  Requirements Coverage as an Adequacy Measure for Conformance Testing , 2008, ICFEM.

[9]  David Harel,et al.  The Rhapsody Semantics of Statecharts (or, On the Executable Core of the UML) - Preliminary Version , 2004, SoftSpez Final Report.

[10]  Yan Jin,et al.  A method for describing the syntax and semantics of UML statecharts , 2004, Software & Systems Modeling.

[11]  Boudewijn R. Haverkort,et al.  Formal Methods: Applications and Technology, 11th International Workshop, FMICS 2006 and 5th International Workshop PDMC 2006, Bonn, Germany, August 26-27, and August 31, 2006, Revised Selected Papers , 2007, FMICS/PDMC.

[12]  Dave Thomas,et al.  State Machines , 2002, IEEE Softw..

[13]  Michelle L. Crane,et al.  UML vs. classical vs. rhapsody statecharts: not all models are created equal , 2005, MoDELS'05.

[14]  Anna Dereziska,et al.  Event Processing in Code Generation and Execution Framework of UML State Machines , 2007 .

[15]  Jan Jürjens.  A UML statecharts semantics with message-passing , 2002, SAC '02.

[16]  Harald Fecher,et al.  UML 2.0 State Machines: Complete Formal Semantics Via core state machine , 2006, FMICS/PDMC.

[17]  Julian Padget,et al.  Analyzing equivalences of UML statechart diagrams by structural congruence and open bisimulations , 2003, IEEE Symposium on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments, 2003. Proceedings. 2003.

[18]  Johan Lilius,et al.  Formalising UML State Machines for Model Checking , 1999, UML.

[19]  Martin Große-Rhode.  Integration of Software Specification Techniques for Applications in Engineering , 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[20]  Ji Wang,et al.  Modelling and model checking suspendible business processes via statechart diagrams and CSP , 2007, Sci. Comput. Program..

[21]  Eugene Miya,et al.  On "Software engineering" , 1985, SOEN.

[22]  Joanne M. Atlee,et al.  Semantic variations among UML statemachines , 2006, MoDELS'06.

[23]  Kevin Lano,et al.  Slicing of UML models using model transformations , 2010, MODELS'10.

[24]  Anna Derezińska,et al.  Code Generation and Execution Framework for UML 2.0 Classes and State Machines , 2007 .

[25]  Michael von der Beeck.  A structured operational semantics for UML-statecharts , 2002, Software and Systems Modeling.

[26]  Stephen J. Mellor,et al.  Executable UML - A Foundation for Model-Driven Architecture , 2002, Addison Wesley object technology series.

[27]  Tarek M. Sobh,et al.  Innovations and Advanced Techniques in Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering , 2007 .