Automated Mapping of UML Activity Diagrams to Formal Specifications for Supporting Containment Checking

Abstract

Business analysts and domain experts are often sketching the behaviors of a software system using high-level models that are technology-and platform-independent. The developers will refine and enrich these high-level models with technical details. As a consequence, the refined models can deviate from the original models over time, especially when the two kinds of models evolve independently. In this context, we focus on behavior models; that is, we aim to ensure that the refined, low-level behavior models conform to the corresponding high-level behavior models. Based on existing formal verification techniques, we propose containment checking as a means to assess whether the system's behaviors described by the low-level models satisfy what has been specified in the high-level counterparts. One of the major obstacles is how to lessen the burden of creating formal specifications of the behavior models as well as consistency constraints, which is a tedious and error-prone task when done manually. Our approach presented in this paper aims at alleviating the aforementioned challenges by considering the behavior models as verification inputs and devising automated mappings of behavior models onto formal properties and descriptions that can be directly used by model checkers. We discuss various challenges in our approach and show the applicability of our approach in illustrative scenarios.

Towards Containment Checking of Behaviour in Architectural Patterns

“…In our earlier work, we have investigated the containment checking problem for various behavioural models. Particularly, our previous research not only supports automated transformation of activity diagrams [Muram et al 2014], sequence diagrams [Muram et al 2016], and BPMN process, choreography and collaboration diagrams into equivalent formal specifications and consistency constraints, but also interprets the counterexamples for locating the cause(s) of inconsistencies and their resolutions 2016;. Besides model checking techniques, graph-based solutions for addressing the problem of containment checking are also investigated .…”

“…This can be done using either manual mapping of input models into formal descriptions and consistency constraints (e.g., specifying the transformation rules) or automated techniques. In [Muram et al 2014;2016] we have introduced the transformation rules grounded on formal expressions that can support the automated transformation of the high-level behaviour models into design constraints and low-level behaviour models into formal descriptions. In particular, the behaviour models are created in Eclipse Papyrus 1 and the Eclipse Xtend framework 2 is used to realise the transformation of behaviour models to formal descriptions and design constraints.…”

“…In order to support containment checking, we conducted a systematic literature review on behaviour consistency checking research . In addition, we have investigated the containment relationship for various behaviour models in our previous work, including activity diagrams [Muram et al 2014;, sequence diagrams [Muram et al 2016] and Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) [Group 2011a] process, choreography and collaboration models . We have also investigated possible solutions that are based on model-checking techniques [Muram et al 2014;2016; and graph algorithms .…”

“…In addition, we have investigated the containment relationship for various behaviour models in our previous work, including activity diagrams [Muram et al 2014;, sequence diagrams [Muram et al 2016] and Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) [Group 2011a] process, choreography and collaboration models . We have also investigated possible solutions that are based on model-checking techniques [Muram et al 2014;2016; and graph algorithms . The major contributions of this paper can be summarised as follows: -For modelling and analysing the behaviours of architectural patterns, we illustrate the containment checking solution using UML2 sequence diagrams [Group 2011b].…”

Automated Analysis of Multi-View Software Architectures

“…(Related work) There is a rich literature on the verification of UML-like diagrams. For example, refinement of activity diagrams has been based on LTL model checking [13], and state machine diagrams have been translated to hierarchical automata as the basis for model checking [11,14,16]. Moreover, sequence diagrams have a straightforward correspondence to communicating processes and process algebras [3,10,17].…”