Re: Formalising UML semantics (VOTE)

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Gianna Reggio (
Date: Wed 11 Jun 2003 - 07:46:35 BST

>Hi all,
>If you made up your mind to formalise UML semantics and notations, which
>formal method would you prefer and why?.  Please all vote.
>Gasso (member)
>To remove yourself from this list please mail
>with a message containing the word "unsubscribe".

I have made experiments with both

**** logical/algebraic specifications, see

G. Reggio, M. Cerioli and E. Astesiano. Towards a Rigorous Semantics 
of UML Supporting its Multiview Approach.
      In Proc. FASE 2001 (H. Hussmann Editor). Lecture Notes in 
Computer Science n. 2029, Berlin, Springer Verlag,


G. Reggio, E. Astesiano, C. Choppy and H. Hussmann. Analysing UML 
Active Classes and Associated State
      Machines -- A Lightweight Formal Approach. In Proc. FASE 2000. 
Lecture Notes in Computer Science n. 1783 (T. Maibaum Editor).
      Berlin, Springer Verlag, 2000.

**** and with my brand of  metamodelling (different from the MML approach)

see its application to statecharts in

G. Reggio. Metamodelling Behavioural Aspects: the Case of the UML 
State Machines. In Proc. IDPT 2002 (H.
      Ehrig, B. J. Kramer and A. Erta eds.). Society for Design and 
Process Science, USA, 2002. CD included.

  The postscript and the pdf versions of this paper are available 
through anonymous ftp at, in
  /person/ReggioG/ and /person/ReggioG/Reggio02b.pdf.

and, while technoically the first one is poerfectly adeguate, I can 
vote for the second one, because the resulting formalization are 
clearly more simpler and readble (they are visual)



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view