Re: Questions about action languages



Re: Questions about action languages

From: Greg O'Keefe <greg.okeefe_at_anu.edu.au>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 14:46:58 +1000
Message-Id: <1149310018.11886.171.camel@reflex.rsise.anu.edu.au>
Eduardo,

On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 10:46, Eduardo Leite wrote:
> I am studing about the adoption of action languages by OMG. I am
> searching for references that can explain better why OMG adopted
> action languages and why the current UML features does not fit the
> proposed goals of action languages. Does anyone knows how to explain
> these questions?

I include below a bibtex entry for a good reference in the early history
of the UML actions (often called "action semantics").

I think the simple answer to the question "Why add actions to UML?" is
"So you can generate complete executable code from a UML model"  or
perhaps "So you can execute a UML model."


> why the current UML features does not fit the proposed goals of action
> languages

I do not understand this part of your question.  Actions are part of UML
2.0 (and 1.5), and I don't know of any "goals of action languages" that
they do not fit.  The actions, like all of UML, are in need of precise
semantics, but that is another question.

Greg O'Keefe


@InProceedings{MeTAL99,
  author = 	 {Stephen J. Mellor and Stephen R. Tockey and Rodolphe
Arthaud and Philippe Leblanc},
  title = 	 {An Action Language for UML: Proposal for a Precise
Execution Semantics},
  booktitle =	 {{UML} 1998 - Beyond the Notation: First International
Workshop.},
  pages =	 {307-318},
  year =	 1999,
  editor =	 {Jean B\'{e}zivin and Pierre-Alain Muller},
  series =	 {LNCS},
  number =       1618,
  publisher =	 {Springer}
}
-- 
Computer Sciences Laboratory
Research School of Information Sciences and Engineering
RSISE Building 115
The Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200
Australia

T: +61-2-6125-8608
F: +61-2-6125-8824
E: greg.okeefe@anu.edu.au
W: http://rsise.anu.edu.au/~okeefe
Received on Sat 03 Jun 2006 - 05:47:11 BST