Formalizing structural semantics of UML 2.5 activity diagram in Z Notation

UML 2.5 Activity Diagram, being the latest version released in 2015, faces some serious problems inherent in UML itself. UML diagrams lack precise mathematical semantics which leads to ambiguities in its interpretation. Therefore, UML cannot be executed by model checkers for the presence of errors and inconsistencies. Z Notation is a widely used Formal Method, which offers robust notations for specifying static and dynamic aspects of any system and it also has a wide range of model checking tools. In this research, the informal semantics of UML 2.5 published by Object Management Group (OMG) has been transformed into Z notation. All the basic building blocks of Activity Diagrams and their structural semantics have been formalized using Z Schemas. Finally the developed formal semantics of Activity Diagram have been checked and analyzed using the Z/EVES toolset.

[1]  Stefan Zugal,et al.  Investigating Differences between Graphical and Textual Declarative Process Models , 2014, CAiSE Workshops.

[2]  Monika Singh,et al.  Formal Transformation of UML Diagram: Use Case, Class, Sequence Diagram with Z Notation for Representing the Static and Dynamic Perspectives of System , 2016 .

[3]  Hartmut König,et al.  On the Formalization of UML Activities for Component-Based Protocol Design Specifications , 2012, SOFSEM.

[4]  Rosziati Ibrahim,et al.  Consistency rules between UML use case and activity diagrams using logical approach , 2011 .

[5]  Ahmed Hadj Kacem,et al.  ForMAAD: towards a model driven approach for agent based application design , 2010 .

[6]  Andreas Bollin,et al.  Coupling-based transformations of Z specifications into UML diagrams , 2011, Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering.

[7]  Fahad Alhumaidan.  State Based Static and Dynamic Formal Analysis of UML State Diagrams , 2012 .

[8]  Nazir Ahmad Zafar,et al.  Transformation of Class Diagrams into Formal Specification , 2011 .

[9]  Z. Weber.  A Paraconsistent Model of Vagueness , 2010 .

[10]  Tharam S. Dillon,et al.  Atomic Use Case as a Concept to Support the MDE Approach to Web Application Development , 2005 .

[11]  Bernhard Rumpe,et al.  Developing the UML as a Formal Modelling Notation , 2014, ArXiv.

[12]  Luciano Baresi,et al.  A logic-based semantics for the verification of multi-diagram UML models , 2012, SOEN.

[13]  Bernhard Rumpe,et al.  ADDiff: semantic differencing for activity diagrams , 2011, ESEC/FSE '11.

[14]  Carlos Pedrinaci,et al.  3-Level Behavioural Models for Semantic Web Services , 2008 .

[15]  Andreas Rausch,et al.  Defining Domain Specific Operational Semantics for Activity Diagrams , 2012 .

[16]  Eugene Syriani,et al.  Operational semantics of UML activity diagram: An application in project management , 2012, 2012 Second IEEE International Workshop on Model-Driven Requirements Engineering (MoDRE).

[17]  Mark Strembeck,et al.  Modeling process-related RBAC models with extended UML activity models , 2011, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[18]  Iman Saleh,et al.  Static Detection of Implementation Errors Using Formal Code Specification , 2013, SEFM.

[19]  Adam Steele,et al.  Executable visual software modeling—the ZOOM approach , 2007, Software Quality Journal.

[20]  Patrick Albert,et al.  A Constrained Object Model for Configuration Based Workflow Composition , 2005, Business Process Management Workshops.

[21]  Fabricia Roos-Frantz,et al.  On the Formalisation of an Application Integration Language Using Z Notation , 2014, ICEIS.