On the Meaning of SysML Activity Diagrams

In this paper, we aim to ascribe a meaning to SysML activity diagrams. To this end, we propose a dedicated algebraic-like language, namely activity calculus, and an operational semantics that provides a rigorous and intuitive operational understanding of the behavior captured by the diagram. The semantics covers advanced control flows such as unstructured loops and concurrent control flows. Further more, our approach allows non well-formed control flows, with mixed and nested forks and joins. The probabilistic behaviors as specified in SysML are also considered. This formalization allows us to build a sound framework for the verification and validation of systems design expressed in SysML activity diagrams.

[1]  Harald Störrle,et al.  Semantics and Verification of Data Flow in UML 2.0 Activities , 2005, VLFM.

[2]  Harald Störrle,et al.  Towards a Formal Semantics of UML 2.0 Activities , 2005, Software Engineering.

[3]  Alan Bundy,et al.  Constructing Induction Rules for Deductive Synthesis Proofs , 2006, CLASE.

[4]  Leonard E. Miller,et al.  NASA systems engineering handbook , 1995 .

[5]  Philippe Martin,et al.  Rendering UML Activity Diagrams as Human-Readable Text , 2009, IKE.

[6]  Frantisek Scuglik.  Relation between UML2 activity diagrams and CSP algebra , 2005 .

[7]  Jan Hendrik Hausmann,et al.  Dynamic META modeling: a semantics description technique for visual modeling languages , 2005 .

[8]  Roberto W. S. Rodrigues.  Formalising UML Activity Diagrams using Finite State Processes , 2000 .

[9]  Yang Dong,et al.  Using /spl pi/-calculus to formalize UML activity diagram for business process modeling , 2003, 10th IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, 2003. Proceedings..

[10]  Wolfgang Rosenstiel,et al.  Formal Performance Analysis and Simulation of UML/SysML Models for ESL Design , 2006, Proceedings of the Design Automation & Test in Europe Conference.

[11]  Harald Sẗorrle Ludwig-Maximilians-Universiẗat.  Semantics of Exceptions in UML 2 . 0 Activities , 2004 .

[12]  Elvinia Riccobene,et al.  An ASM Semantics for UML Activity Diagrams , 2000, AMAST.

[13]  Marta Z. Kwiatkowska,et al.  Quantitative Analysis With the Probabilistic Model Checker PRISM , 2006, QAPL.

[14]  Conrad E. Bock,et al.  UML 2 activity model support for systems engineering functional flow diagrams , 2003 .

[15]  Maciej Koutny,et al.  Petri Net Algebra , 2001, Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science An EATCS Series.

[16]  Eike Best,et al.  Overview of the results of the Esprit basic research action DEMON-design methods based on nets , 1991, Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Petri Nets and Performance Models PNPM91.

[17]  Javier Campos,et al.  From UML activity diagrams to Stochastic Petri nets: application to software performance engineering , 2004, WOSP '04.

[18]  Walter Guttmann,et al.  An ASM Semantics of Token Flow in UML 2 Activity Diagrams , 2006, Ershov Memorial Conference.

[19]  Reiko Heckel,et al.  Rule-Level Verification of Business Process Transformations using CSP , 2007, Electron. Commun. Eur. Assoc. Softw. Sci. Technol..

[20]  Harald Störrle,et al.  Semantics of Control-Flow in UML 2.0 Activities , 2004, 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages - Human Centric Computing.

[21]  Gordon D. Plotkin,et al.  A structural approach to operational semantics , 2004, J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program..

[22]  Hiroaki Nakamura,et al.  Model-Driven Performance Analysis of UML Design Models Based on Stochastic Process Algebra , 2005, ECMDA-FA.

[23]  Mourad Debbabi,et al.  Automatic Verification and Performance Analysis of Time-Constrained SysML Activity Diagrams , 2007, 14th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS'07).

[24]  Jayadev Misra,et al.  Computation Orchestration , 2007, Software & Systems Modeling.