A Formal Semantics for SysML Activity Diagrams

In this work, we propose a semantics for Activity Diagrams based on the COMPASS Modelling Language (CML): a formal specification language to model systems which is based on the CSP and VDM specification languages. A distinguishing feature of our semantics is that it is defined as part of a larger effort to define the semantics of several diagrams of SysML, a UML profile for systems engineering. We have defined a fairly comprehensive semantics for Activity Diagrams, which comprises action, object and control nodes constructors, control and object flow, interruptible regions among other features. We illustrate our semantics with diagrams of an emergency response system. We also discuss an analysis strategy which involves an integrated view of diagrams like block definition and state machines.

[1]  Jim Woodcock,et al.  Features of CML: A formal modelling language for Systems of Systems , 2012, 2012 7th International Conference on System of Systems Engineering (SoSE).

[2]  Francesco Bergadano,et al.  Software Engineering Applications , 1995 .

[3]  Dániel Varró,et al.  Transformation of UML Models to CSP: A Case Study for Graph Transformation Tools , 2008, AGTIVE.

[4]  T. Higgins.  Book reviewSystems engineering handbook: edited by R. E. Machol, W. P. Tanner, Jr., and S. N. Alexander. 1054 pages, diagrams, illustr., New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965. Price, $29.50 , 1966 .

[5]  Andrew William Roscoe,et al.  The Theory and Practice of Concurrency , 1997 .

[6]  Mourad Debbabi,et al.  On the Meaning of SysML Activity Diagrams , 2009, 2009 16th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems.

[7]  Steve A. Schneider,et al.  Formal Verification of Tokeneer Behaviours Modelled in fUML Using CSP , 2010, ICFEM.

[8]  Sanford Friedenthal,et al.  A Practical Guide to SysML: The Systems Modeling Language , 2008 .

[9]  Alexander Raschke.  Translation of UML 2 Activity Diagrams into Finite State Machines for Model Checking , 2009, 2009 35th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications.

[10]  Manfred Nagl,et al.  Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance, Third International Symposium, AGTIVE 2007, Kassel, Germany, October 10-12, 2007, Revised Selected and Invited Papers , 2008, Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance.

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

[12]  Wei Liu,et al.  Towards Formalizing UML Activity Diagrams in CSP , 2008, 2008 International Symposium on Computer Science and Computational Technology.

[13]  Dong Xu,et al.  Model Checking UML Activity Diagrams in FDR , 2009, 2009 Eighth IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science.

[14]  Jim Davies,et al.  Concurrency and Refinement in the Unified Modeling Language , 2002, Formal Aspects of Computing.

[15]  Kamel Barkaoui,et al.  Mapping UML 2.0 Activities to Zero-Safe Nets , 2010, J. Softw. Eng. Appl..

[16]  Tony Spiteri Staines.  Intuitive Mapping of UML 2 Activity Diagrams into Fundamental Modeling Concept Petri Net Diagrams and Colored Petri Nets , 2008, 15th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems (ecbs 2008).

[17]  Peter Gorm Larsen,et al.  Modelling Systems: Practical Tools and Techniques in Software Development , 1998 .

[18]  Cevdet Aykanat,et al.  Technical Report , 1978 .