The document presents a framework for verifying UML behavioral models. The framework aims to verify correctness properties like syntactic correctness, executability, completeness, and redundancy. It uses static analysis techniques and provides corrective feedback to designers. The framework takes various UML diagrams as input and detects issues through properties defined for actions. The goal is to help designers verify behavioral specifications without simulation.

1. Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 10th June 2009 Amsterdam A Framework for V erifying UML B ehavioral M odels Elena Planas [email_address] Open University of Catalonia

3. Life cycle of software Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions > Context > Motivation Model Driven Development A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 2 specification design implementation testing Code before UML Model Structural model Behavioral model now thesis proposal

4. Code Generation > Context > Motivation Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 3 Code UML Behavioral Model We need define UML model in sufficient detail and precision subset of UML Actions CreateObject DestroyObject AddStructuralFeature CreateLink DestroyLink ReclassifyObject CallOperation UML Structured Actions if… then… else… endif while... do… endwhile do… while… enddo A ction S emantics Action = fundamental unit of behavior specification Basis for defining the behavior in a fine granularity

5. E xample > Context > Motivation Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 4 Person name : String email : String Department name : String WorksIn 1 * context Person:: addPerson (n:String, e:String) { p: Person; p := CreateObject(Person); AddStructuralFeature(p,name,n); AddStructuralFeature(p,email,e); } context Person:: changeAddress (a:String) { AddStructuralFeature(self,address,a); }

6. E xample > Context > Motivation Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 4 Person name : String email : String Department name : String WorksIn 1 * context Person:: addPerson (n:String, e:String) { p: Person; p := CreateObject(Person); AddStructuralFeature(p,name,n); AddStructuralFeature(p,email,e); } context Person:: changeAddress (a:String) { AddStructuralFeature(self,address,a); } NOT SYNTACTICALLY CORRECT

7. E xample > Context > Motivation Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 4 Person name : String email : String Department name : String WorksIn 1 * context Person:: changeAddress (a:String) { AddStructuralFeature(self,adress,a); } NOT EXECUTABLE context Person:: addPerson (n:String, e:String) { p: Person; p := CreateObject(Person); AddStructuralFeature(p,name,n); AddStructuralFeature(p,email,e); }

8. E xample > Context > Motivation Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions NOT COMPLETE A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 4 Person name : String email : String Department name : String WorksIn 1 * context Person:: addPerson (n:String, e:String) { p: Person; p := CreateObject(Person); AddStructuralFeature(p,name,n); AddStructuralFeature(p,email,e); } context Person:: changeAddress (a:String) { AddStructuralFeature(self,adress,a); }

9. Provide a verification framework to help the designers to verify the correctness of their behavioral models (based in Actions) G oal > Goals > Framework description > Important issues Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 5

10. S ub-Goals Identify and describe correctness properties: - Syntactic correctness - Executability - Completeness - Redundancy 1 > Goals > Framework description > Important issues Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 6

11. S ub-Goals Develop a static (do not require simulation of the model) model verifier composed by a set of efficient techniques to verify the previous properties 2 > Goals > Framework description > Important issues A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 7 Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions

12. S ub-Goals Integrate the previous static techniques with other existing verification approaches (Model Checking) 3 > Goals > Framework description > Important issues A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 8 Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions

13. S ub-Goals Provide useful feedback to the designer 4 > Goals > Framework description > Important issues A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 9 Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions

14. I nput UML Class Diagram Operations Activity Diagrams Interaction Diagrams State Machines Behavioral Specification (Action Semantics) > Goals > Framework description: Input > Important issues A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 10 Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions

15. V erification techniques used > Goals > Framework description: Techniques > Important issues Static techniques Static analysis Output: Corrective feedback First correctness analysis A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 11 specification design implementation testing Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions Model Checking Translation: State Explosion Problem LTL properties Output: Error trace More detailed analysis UML Model MC language

16. S yntactic Correctness A behavioral specification described using actions is syntactically correct when all the actions included in it satisfy the WFR WFR ( W ell F ormedness R ule) = Constraint that restrict the possible set of valid UML models. > Goals > Framework description: Properties > Important issues A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 12 Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions

17. S yntactic Correctness: Example WFR: The classifier cannot be abstract context CreateObject inv: not (self.classifier.isAbstract = #true) obj2 := CreateObject(ConcreteClass); obj1 := CreateObject(AbstractClass); > Goals > Framework description: Properties > Important issues A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 13 Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions AbstractClass ConcreteClass

18. E xecutability A behavioral specification described using actions is executable when there is a chance that a user may successfully execute it Weak Executability  at least one sucessful execution of the behavior Strong Executability  all successful executions of the behavior > Goals > Framework description: Properties > Important issues A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 14 Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions

19. E xecutability: Example context Person:: addPerson (n:String, e:String) { p: Person; p := CreateObject(Person); AddStructuralFeature(p,name,n); AddStructuralFeature(p,email,e); } > Goals > Framework description: Properties > Important issues A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 15 Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions FEEDBACK : Add a CreateLink Person name : String email : String Department name : String WorksIn 1 * not executable

20. E xecutability: Example > Goals > Framework description: Properties > Important issues A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 15 context Person:: addPerson (n:String, e:String, d:Department ) { p: Person; p := CreateObject(Person); AddStructuralFeature(p,name,n); AddStructuralFeature(p,email,e); CreateLink(WorksIn, person, self, department, d); } Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions FEEDBACK : Add a CreateLink Person name : String email : String Department name : String WorksIn 1 * executable

21. C ompleteness A set of behavioral specifications described using actions is complete when all possible changes (inserts/updates/deletes) on all parts of the system state can be performed throught the execution of this set of behaviors > Goals > Framework description: Properties > Important issues A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 16 Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions

22. C ompleteness: Example > Goals > Framework description: Properties > Important issues A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 17 context Person:: addPerson (n:String, e:String, d:Department) { p: Person; p := CreateObject(Person); AddStructuralFeature(p,name,n); AddStructuralFeature(p,email,e); CreateLink(WorksIn, person, self, department, d); } Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions FEEDBACK : Add actions to create/destroy departments … Person name : String email : String Department name : String WorksIn 1 * not complete

23. R edundancy An action (or set of actions) in an behavioral specification is redundant if its effect on the system state is subsumed by the effect of later actions in the same behavioral specification > Goals > Framework description: Properties > Important issues A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 18 Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions

24. R edundancy: Example > Goals > Framework description: Properties > Important issues A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 19 Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions FEEDBACK : Remove the first update context Person:: changeName (name1:String, name2:String) { AddStructuralFeature(self,name,name1); AddStructuralFeature(self,name,name2); } Redundancy : The second update overwrites the first one redundant action

25. I mportant issues > Goals > Framework description: Properties > Important issues A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 20 Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions scope Action based UML behavioral specifications extension Aplicable to BPM diagrams limitations Our static verification do not check conditions

27. C onclusions Framework for the verification of the correctnes of UML behavioral models Extensible to other kinds of behavioral specifications Focused on Actions Valuable feedback ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ A Framework for Verifying UML Behavioral Models Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 – 10th June 2009, Amsterdam 22 Introduction Thesis Proposal Related Work Conclusions

28. Doctoral Consortium CAiSE’09 10th June 2009 Amsterdam T hanks for your attention! Elena Planas [email_address] A Framewrok for Verifying UML Behavioral Models