Verifying UML/OCL models using Boolean satisfiability

Soeken, Mathias; Wille, Robert; Kuhlmann, Mirco; Gogolla, Martin; Drechsler, Rolf

doi:10.1109/date.2010.5457017

Cited by 91 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are several approaches and tools aiming to validate models enriched with OCL constraints [27] relying upon different logic formalisms such as constraint logic programming [17,18,13], SAT-based model finders (like Alloy) [53,3,15,36,54], first-order logic [8], constructive query containment [45], higher-order logic [12,28], or rewriting logics [20]. Some of these approaches (like e.g.…”

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

“…For instance, a direct translation of UML and OCL concepts into SAT has been addressed in [26]. However, a direct translation cannot benefit from existing translation mechanisms like the sophisticated symmetry detection and breaking scheme which enables an efficient handling of partial solutions, or the detection and exploitation of redundant structures in formulas which are implemented in Kodkod.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

From UML and OCL to Relational Logic and Back

Kuhlmann

Gogolla

2012

Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Languages like UML and OCL are used to precisely model systems. Complex UML and OCL models therefore represent a crucial part of model-driven development, as they formally specify the main system properties. Consequently, creating complete and correct models is a critical concern. For this purpose, we provide a lightweight model validation method based on efficient SAT solving techniques. In this paper, we present a transformation from UML class diagram and OCL concepts into relational logic. Relational logic in turn represents the source for advanced SAT-based model instance finders like Kodkod. This paper focuses on a natural transformation approach which aims to exploit the features of relational logic as directly as possible through straitening the handling of main UML and OCL features. This approach allows us to explicitly benefit from the efficient handling of relational logic in Kodkod and to interpret found results backwards in terms of UML and OCL.

show abstract

“…This paper extends [22] by including a more thorough related work section, a formal presentation of our specification language, an integral exposition of the whole framework, and more importantly, we discuss the results of a set of experiments to measure the effectiveness of the different levels of coverage defined for specifications. Input test model generation in these experiments has been carried out using the ocl2smt model finder [45], which has been recently integrated in our transformation testing tool. This has been done for performance reasons, as we noticed that the SMT formalization was advantageous compared to the CSP formalization for the considered model transformations.…”

Section: Send Offprint Requests Tomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, we use OCL as target language because there are available solvers that find models satisfying a set of OCL constraints [8,45] and we do not need to parse the OCL formulas in the properties of the specification to a different language. Nonetheless, this is our particular option and the framework could be used with a different target language whenever a translation from our specification language is provided.…”

Section: Translation Of Properties In the Specificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a consequence, we ensure the coverage of the properties in the specification. The input models are calculated using SAT solving techniques on OCL expressions generated from the specification [45], and it is possible to choose between seven levels of coverage to obtain different degrees of exhaustiveness when testing. Additionally, a dedicated mtUnit test suite is generated for the automated testing of the transformation implementation using the generated input models and oracle functions.…”

Section: Send Offprint Requests Tomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Specification-driven model transformation testing

Guerra

Soeken

2013

Softw Syst Model

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Testing model transformations poses several challenges, among them the automatic generation of appropriate input test models and the specification of oracle functions. Most approaches to the generation of input models ensure a certain coverage of the source meta-model or the transformation implementation code, whereas oracle functions are frequently defined using query or graph languages. However, these two tasks are usually performed independently regardless of their common purpose, and sometimes there is a gap between the properties exhibited by the generated input models and those considered by the transformations.Recently, we proposed a formal specification language for the declarative formulation of transformation properties (by means of invariants, pre-and postconditions) from which we generated partial oracle functions used for transformation testing. Here, we extend the usage of our specification language for the automated generation of input test models by SAT solving. The testing process becomes more intentional because the generated models ensure a certain coverage of the transformation requirements. Moreover, we use the same specification to consistently derive both the input test models and the oracle functions. A set of experiments is presented, aimed at measuring the efficacy of our technique.

show abstract

Verifying UML/OCL models using Boolean satisfiability

Cited by 91 publications

References 13 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

From UML and OCL to Relational Logic and Back

Specification-driven model transformation testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About