Abstract

Formalization of UML models now becomes a requisite action by most of the software designers. UML is semiformal in nature. So it becomes necessary to formalize the UML which would reduce the overall complexity of software design. Today as software becoming more interactive and distributed in nature, the formal syntax and automated verification analysis of behavioral aspect of any model becomes very important in order to reduce overall software development cost and time. UML Activity diagram has become widely acceptable tool for documenting the artifacts related to Control flow and complexity of the software system. Here Authors proposed the semantics for activity diagram of UML by means of regular expression and its equivalent transition system. UML has now become one of the most widely acceptable standards for visual modeling related to object based software development. Since inception, continuous adoption of various design patterns and profiles of software have been included to make it more flexible and capable to represent different views of software design at early phases of its development. It is also found that the mapping of these visual modeling structures to some pre-established formal graphical notations of data structures like graph certainly provides more realistic and robust automated verification and validation ground for these models. The available literature shows the tremendous research work is being carried out to make it more adoptable and reliable visual modeling platform across the globe. Although UML has a richer and wider visual modeling skill set, but still it is not very easy to find better ground for establishing, set of rules and semantics for UML model verification and validation. The research work also proposes a formal verification and traceability method for any activity model with the help of Arden's lemma. The correctness of proposed verification method has been shown with supporting case studies after generating its corresponding formal regular expression.

Keywords:

Arden, finite state machine, regular expression, transition system, UML activity diagram,

References

1. Alonso, G., F. Casati, H. Kuno and V. Machiraju, 2004. Web Services: Concepts, Architectures and Applications. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp: 354.
   CrossRef    
2. Ammann, P., P. Black and W. Majurski, 1998. Using model checking to generate tests from specifications. Proceeding of the International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods (ICFEM), pp: 46-54.
   CrossRef    
3. Baldan, P., A. Corradini and F. Gadducci, 2005. Specifying and verifying UML activity diagrams via graph transformation. In: Priami, C. and P. Quaglia (Eds.), GC, 2004. LNCS, 3267, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp: 18-33.
   CrossRef    
4. Baresi, L. and R. Heckel, 2002. Tutorial introduction to graph transformation: A software engineering perspective. In: Corradini, A. et al. (Eds.), ICGT, 2002. LNCS 2505, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp: 402-429.
   CrossRef    
5. Bolton, C. and J. Davies, 2000. On giving a behavioural semantics to activity graphs. In: Evans, A., S. Kent and B. Selic (Eds.), UML 2000. LNCS 1939, Springer, Heidelberg.
   
6. Börger, E., A. Cavarra and E. Riccobene, 2000. An ASM semantics for UML activity diagrams. In: Rus, T. (Ed.), AMAST 2000. LNCS 1816, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp: 293-308.
   CrossRef    
7. Chandler, R., C.P. Lam and H. Li, 2005. An automated approach to generating usage scenarios from UML activity diagrams. Proceeding of the 12th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference.
   CrossRef    
8. Chen, M., X. Qiu and X. Li, 2006. Automatic test case generation for UML activity diagrams. Proceeding of the International Workshop on Automation of Software Test (AST '06).
   
9. Cimatti, A., E. Clarke, F. Giun Chiglia and M. Roveri, 2000. NuSMV: A new symbolic model checker. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Trans., 2(4): 410-425.
   CrossRef    
10. Deepak, A., H. Bramah and S. Vipin, 2012. Semantics for UML model transformation and generation of regular grammar. ACM SIGSOFT, 37: 1-5.
    
11. Ehrig, H., G. Engels, H.J. Kreowski and G. Rozenberg, 1999. Handbook on Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation: Vol. 2: Applications, Languages and Tools. World Scientific Publishing Co. Inc., River Edge, NJ, USA.
    
12. Engels, G., C. Soltenborn and H. Wehrheim, 2007. Analysis UML activities using dynamic meta modeling. Proceeding of the 9th IFIP International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems (FMOODS), 4468: 76-90.
    CrossRef    PMid:17149520    
13. Eshuis, R., D. Jansen and R. Andwieringa, 2002. Requirements-level semantics and model checking of object-oriented statecharts. Requir. Eng. J., 7: 243-263.
    CrossRef    
14. Eshuis, R., 2006. Symbolic model checking of UML activity diagrams. ACM T. Softw. Eng. Meth., 15(1): 1-38.
    CrossRef    
15. Friedl, J.E.F., 2006. Mastering Regular Expressions. O'Reilly, New York, ISBN: 0596528124.
    
16. Hausmann, J.H., 2005. Dynamic META modeling: A semantics description technique for visual modeling languages. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Paderborn, Germany.
    
17. Li, H. and C.P. Lam, 2005. Using anti-ant-like agents to generate test threads from the UML diagrams. In: Khendek, F. and R. Dssouli (Eds.), TestCom 2005. LNCS 3502, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp: 69-80.
    CrossRef    
18. Martin, G. and W. Müller, 2005. UML for SOC Design. Springer, US.
    CrossRef    
19. Müller, W., A. Rosti, S. Bocchio, E. Riccobene, P. Scandurra, W. Dehaene and Y. Vanderperren, 2006. UML for ESL design-basic principles, tools, and applications. Proceeding of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, pp: 73-80.
    CrossRef    
20. Object Management Group, 2005. UML Specification 2.0. Retrieved from: http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/modelingspeccatalog.htm.
    http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/modelingspeccatalog.htm
21. OMG, 2007. UML Superstructure V2.1.2. Retrieved from: http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.1.2/.
    Direct Link
22. Raschke, A., 2009. Translation of UML 2 activity diagrams into finite state machines for model checking. Proceeding of the 35th Euro Micro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA, 2009), pp: 149-154.
    CrossRef    
23. Rensink, A., 2004. The GROOVE simulator: A tool for state space generation. In: Pfaltz, J.L., M. Nagl and B. Böhlen (Eds.), Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance (AGTIVE). LNCS 3062, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp: 479-485.
    CrossRef    
24. Rodrigues, R.W.S., 2000. Formalising UML activity diagrams using finite state processes. Online Proceeding of the UML 2000 Workshop on Dynamic Behaviour in UML Models: Semantic Questions.
    
25. Rumbaugh, J., I. Jacobson and G. Booch, 2001. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison Wesley, Boston.
    
26. Störrle, H. and J.H. Hausmann, 2005. Towards a Formal Semantics of UML 2.0 Activities. In: Liggesmeyer, P., K. Pohl and M. Goedicke (Eds.) Software Engineering. LNI, GI, 64: 117-128.
    
27. Wang, L., J. Yuan, X. Yu, J. Hu, X. Li and G. Zheng, 2005. Generating test cases from UML activity diagram based on gray-box method. Proceeding of the 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp: 284-291.
    
28. Xu, D., H. Li and C.P. Lam, 2005. Using adaptive agents to automatically generate test scenarios from the UML activity diagrams. Proceeding of the 12th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference.
    

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Open Access Policy

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Copyright

The authors have no competing interests.