From UML and OCL to Relational Logic and Back

Kuhlmann, Mirco; Gogolla, Martin

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33666-9_27

Cited by 79 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In [34] a mapping from UML and OCL to Relational Logic Formulas is presented. As a difference our paper covers (1) multiple inheritance in metamodels and (2) the new transitive closure construct in OCL by approximation (3) handling of float/double arithmetics.…”

Section: Validation Of Ocl Enriched Metamodelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal validation of domain-specific languages with derived features and well-formedness constraints

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the wide range of existing tool support, constructing a design environment for a complex domain-specific language (DSL) is still a tedious task as the large number of derived features and well-formedness constraints complementing the domain metamodel necessitate special handling. Such derived features and constraints are frequently defined by declarative techniques (such graph patterns or OCL invariants).However, for complex domains, derived features and constraints can easily be formalized incorrectly resulting in inconsistent, incomplete or ambiguous DSL specifications. To detect such issues, we propose an automated mapping of EMF metamodels enriched with derived features and well-formedness constraints captured as graph queries in EMF-IncQuery or (a subset of) OCL invariants into an effectively propositional fragment of first-order logic which can be efficiently analyzed by back-end reasoners.On the conceptual level, the main added value of our encoding is (1) to transform graph patterns of the EMF-IncQuery framework into FOL and (2) to introduce approximations for complex language features (e.g. transitive closure or multiplicities) which are not expressible in FOL. On the practical level, we identify and address relevant challenges and scenarios for systematically validating DSL specifications. Our approach is supported by a tool and it will be illustrated on analyzing a DSL in the avionics domain. We also present initial performance experiments for the validation using Z3 and Alloy as back-end reasoners.

show abstract

Section: Validation Of Ocl Enriched Metamodelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal validation of domain-specific languages with derived features and well-formedness constraints

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As argued in [29], this is a pragmatic choice which greatly simplifies analysis of specifications, and is adequate in most cases. Transformation specifiers should separately ensure that invalid expression evaluations cannot occur in their transformations, using the definedness conditions of expressions (Section 5).…”

Section: Representation Of Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recursive update operations cannot be represented. B is not suitable for establishing satisfiability properties asserting the existence of models of certain kinds, and tools such as Z3, UMLtoCSP [15], Alloy [2] or USE [29] are more appropriate for these. Table 9 lists some existing formalisms/technologies which can be used for transformation verification based on proof, and identifies their appropriateness or limitations for different verification tasks.…”

Section: Proof-based Verificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A framework for model transformation verification

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. A model transformation verification task may involve a number of different transformations, from one or more of a wide range of different model transformation languages, each transformation may have a particular transformation style, and there are a number of different verification properties which can be verified for each language and style of transformation. Transformations may operate upon many different modelling languages. This diversity of languages and properties indicates the need for a suitably generic framework for model transformation verification, independent of particular model transformation languages, and able to provide support for systematic procedures for verification across a range of languages, and for a range of properties. In this paper we describe the elements of such a framework, and apply this framework to a range of transformation verification problems. Our particular contributions are (i) languageindependent verification techniques based around the concepts of transformation invariants and variants; (ii) language-independent representation metamodels for transformation specifications and implementations, (iii) mappings from these representations to the B and Z3 formalisms, (iv) the use of transformation patterns to facilitate verification. The paper is novel in covering a wide range of different verification techniques for a wide range of MT languages, within an integrated framework.

show abstract

“…In this section, we present a number of analysis techniques for a-posteriori typing specifications which are based on the use of constraint solving and model finders [15].…”

Section: Analysis Of A-posteriori Typingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A-posteriori typing for Model-Driven Engineering

Lara

Guerra

Cuadrado

2015

2015 ACM/IEEE 18th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Esta es la versión de autor de la comunicación de congreso publicada en: This is an author produced version of a paper published in: Abstract-Model-Driven Engineering is founded on the ability to create and process models conformant to a meta-model. Hence, meta-model classes are used in two ways: as templates to create objects, and as classifiers for them. While these two aspects are inherently tied in most meta-modelling approaches, in this paper, we discuss the benefits of their decoupling. Thus, we rely on standard mechanisms for object creation and propose a-posteriori typing as a means to reclassify objects and enable multiple, partial, dynamic typings. This approach enhances flexibility, permitting unanticipated reutilization (as existing model management operations defined for a meta-model can be reused with other models once they get reclassified), as well as model transformation by reclassification. We show the underlying theory behind the introduced concepts, and illustrate its applicability using our METADEPTH meta-modelling tool.

show abstract

From UML and OCL to Relational Logic and Back

Cited by 79 publications

References 21 publications

Formal validation of domain-specific languages with derived features and well-formedness constraints

Formal validation of domain-specific languages with derived features and well-formedness constraints

A framework for model transformation verification

A-posteriori typing for Model-Driven Engineering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About