FW: Formalising UML semantics (VOTE)



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Andy Evans (andye@cs.york.ac.uk)
Date: Wed 11 Jun 2003 - 10:03:19 BST


------ Forwarded Message
From: Bernhard Rumpe <rumpe@in.tum.de>
Organization: TU Munich
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:00:21 +0100
To: puml-list@cs.york.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Formalising UML semantics (VOTE)


*****  FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE MAILING LIST OWNER  *****

See X-Diagnostic: headers above for more details

*****  FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE MAILING LIST OWNER  *****



Gasso W. Mwaluseke wrote:
> 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.
> 
You might at first clarify, whether you mean the target language
(semantic domain) or the language to describe the semantic mapping,
which are both completely disconnected.
If one wants, the latter is on the meta-level.
I have a nice paper on that:

# The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, MCS00-16
Modeling Languages: Syntax, Semantics and All That Stuff
David Harel, Bernhard Rumpe, 2000.

http://www4.in.tum.de/~rumpe/ps/Modeling-Languages.pdf

For the mapping, I would prefer a
functional language (ML, Gofer, Haskell):
It is precise and compact.
It can simulate pure math at best but allows
to typecheck and run ("simulate") the semantics.

> Gasso (member)
> 
Bernhard (founder)

-- 
Dr. Bernhard Rumpe, Software & Systems Engineering
Munich University of Technology,
Boltzmannstr. 3, 85748 Munich-Garching, Germany
http://www4.in.tum.de/~rumpe/
--------
until June 30th at:
IRISA-INRIA, Campus de Beaulieu, F-35042 Rennes (France)
bernhard.rumpe@irisa.fr
Phone: +33 299 84 7281





------ End of Forwarded Message

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view