From Interaction Overview Diagrams to Temporal Logic

In this paper, we use UML Interaction Overview Diagrams as the basis for a user-friendly, intuitive, modeling notation that is well-suited for the design of complex, heterogeneous, embedded systems developed by domain experts with little background on modeling software-based systems. To allow designers to precisely analyze models written with this notation, we provide (part of) it with a formal semantics based on temporal logic, upon which a fully automated, tool supported, verification technique is built. The modeling and verification technique is presented and discussed through the aid of an example system.

[1]  Rik Eshuis,et al.  Symbolic model checking of UML activity diagrams , 2006, TSEM.

[2]  W. Marsden.  I and J , 2012 .

[3]  Alexander Knapp,et al.  Model checking of UML 2.0 interactions , 2006, MoDELS'06.

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

[5]  Mikael Lindvall.  in Software Engineering , 2002 .

[6]  Juliana Küster-Filipe.  From Interaction Overview Diagrams to PEPA Nets , 2005 .

[7]  Thouraya Bouabana-Tebibel.  Semantics of the interaction overview diagram , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse & Integration.

[8]  Rossi Matteo,et al.  MADES: Embedded Systems Engineering Approach in the Avionics Domain , 2010, ECMFA 2010.

[9]  Matteo Pradella,et al.  The symmetry of the past and of the future: bi-infinite time in the verification of temporal properties , 2007, ESEC-FSE '07.

[10]  Rik Eshuis,et al.  Tool support for verifying UML activity diagrams , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[11]  David Harel,et al.  Synthesizing State-Based Object Systems from LSC Specifications , 2000, Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci..

[12]  Borivoj Melichar,et al.  Finding Common Motifs with Gaps Using Finite Automata , 2006, CIAA.

[13]  Sebastián Uchitel,et al.  A workbench for synthesising behaviour models from scenarios , 2001, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2001.

[14]  Dino Mandrioli,et al.  From formal models to formally based methods: an industrial experience , 1999, TSEM.

[15]  Matteo Pradella,et al.  Bounded Reachability for Temporal Logic over Constraint Systems , 2010, 2010 17th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning.

[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]  Thouraya Bouabana Tebibel.  Semantics of the interaction overview diagram , 2009, IRI 2009.

[18]  Vitus S. W. Lam.  On pi-Calculus Semantics as a Formal Basis for UML Activity Diagrams , 2008, Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng..

[19]  Alexander Knapp,et al.  Operational Semantics of UML 2 . 0 Interactions , 2005 .

[20]  María Victoria Cengarle,et al.  Semantics of UML 2.0 Interactions with Variabilities , 2006, FACS.