Dynamic Behaviour in UML Models: Semantic
Questions
Call for Participation
EXTENDED
DEADLINE: 25 August 2000
Although many years of practical experience went into the design of the
UML, the lack of precise semantics still stands in the way of effective
application.
The modelling of complex systems requires techniques that allow us
to manage complexity as well as techniques that allow early detection
of errors in behaviour models.
UML well supports the principle of separation of views that is an effective
means of controlling complexity.
However, UML does not support so well the formality and
rigour needed to early detect errors in requirements and design.
Developing
a precise, complete, and understandable semantics for the UML
that enables practical, tool-supported and rigorous analysis of UML models
can enhance its applicability to the modelling of complex systems. A formal
analysis of the semantic foundations of the UML notations can also lead
to more precise and complete natural language descriptions of the notations
in the UML standard. In addition, the insights provided by a well-defined UML
semantics can help modelers choose appropriately among a variety of modelling
constructs.
These observations are particularly relevant when we consider the dynamic
behaviour of the UML models:
-
UML offers many different notations to represent dynamic behaviour, such
as statechart diagrams, sequence diagrams, collaboration diagrams, and
activity diagrams, and they are based on different paradigms/techniques.
-
dynamic behaviour is also modelled in other diagrams, not specifically
intended for this; for example, in a class diagram we may have
-
invariants for active classes or for the whole model,
-
pre-post conditions on operations of active classes,
-
concurrency properties of operations,
-
signal reception specifications,
-
........
-
an aspect of the dynamic behaviour of a part of a system may be described
simultaneously in several diagrams of a UML model, so that there is the
need of developing methods, techniques and tools to
help to avoid to introduce inconsistency in a model.
-
most of the semantic variation points in the UML are related to dynamic
behaviour (for example, the policy for handling the event queue in
statecharts).
-
........
The purpose of this workshop is to bring together researchers and practitioners
from academia and industry to report on their experiences with developing
precise semantics for the dynamic behaviour of UML models.
This one-day workshop will be the first on the particular topic of
the semantics of the dynamic behaviour of the UML,
but it ideally follows a series of successful four workshops on strengthening
the UML semantic foundation organized at the OOPSLA and ECOOP conferences
in the last two years, where this particular topic raised many questions
and lively debate. Presentations and discussions at this workshop will
focus on identifying the challenges, recognizing limitations, and analyzing
proposed semantics for the dynamic aspects of UML.
The results of these discussions are being collected in the
The
precise UML
group
FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) document. The FAQ will provide answers
to questions, clarifying the role and need for precise semantics, the different
approaches that can be taken, and highlight key problems.
Participation
Attendance at the workshop will be on invitation only. Participants that
would like to be invited are asked to write a position paper on some aspect of
the dynamic behaviour of UML models. A nonexhaustive list of topics is
-
precise semantics of the "dynamic" diagrams, as statecharts, sequence,
collaboration, and activity diagrams; and of the constraints over them;
-
precise semantics of UML models integrating the views presented by the
different diagrams;
-
precise relationships among the different ways provided by UML to model
some dynamic aspect of a system (for example equivalence between diagrams);
-
relationships between class diagrams and diagrams concerning the dynamic
behaviour;
-
profiles covering dynamic aspects;
-
rigorous methods for modelling dynamic aspects of systems with UML exploiting
proper ways to use the various diagrams;
-
motivations/proposals for UML extensions concerning the dynamic aspects
(for example, extensions of OCL to allow to express many relevant constraints
on the dynamic behaviour, as liveness);
-
translating one behaviour notation into another;
-
refinement and abstraction for behaviour models;
-
..........
Submissions should be not longer than 5 pages and should be either
an HTML document, or a plain text or a PDF file to be sent to Gianna
Reggio.
The organizing committee will review submissions and select those that
present relevant and interesting ideas and concepts that can contribute
to the workshop.
The committee will set up a preliminary web-based discussion around
the topics of the accepted submissions; the results of such discussion
will be in a summary to be distributed at the participants as a starting
point for the workshop.
The selected contributions will be published as a technical report
jointly issued by the Technical and the Ludwig-Maximilians Universities of
Munich. In addition, the
organizers will take care to prepare a short report
describing the workshop results for the UML'2000 Workshops Reader.
The existing UML semantics FAQ document for the part about the dynamic
behaviour aspects will be updated with the main results concerning key
questions/answers addressed during the workshop.
Dates
-
Deadline for sending position papers: 25 August 2000
!!!NEW!!!.
-
Notification of acceptance: 28 August 2000.
-
Workshop: 2 or 3 October 2000.
Location & Registration
The workshop will take place at York (Great Britain) before the conference
<<UML>>
2000.
Information about the workshop location, fee, and registration can
be found on the page of <<UML>>
2000; a discounted fee will be offered for those also
attending the conference.
Organizers
Gianna Reggio (DISI
- Università di Genova, Italy) CONTACT
PERSON reggio@disi.unige.it
Alexander Knapp,
(Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany)
Bernhard Rumpe (TU München,
Germany)
Bran Selic (Rational Software Inc.)
Roel Wieringa (University
of Twente, The Netherlands)
Last Updated: 27 July 2000