RE: Re: Questions about action languages



RE: Re: Questions about action languages

From: Jrn Guy S <jgsuess_at_itee.uq.edu.au>
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:26:18 +1000
Message-ID: <002301c6879f$cdaa7cd0$4e406682@itee.uq.edu.au>
Eduardo,

 

A limitation of sequence diagrams and the (intentionally) equivalent
collaboration diagrams is, that they are only existentially quantified.-
They are descriptions of a set of possible scenarios, not of complete
programs. The notation has limitations which do not allow its use as a basis
for synthesizing general behaviour. This is to do with possible interleaving
of processes and the optional occurrence of sub-processes. I believe the
first treatment of this problem, which almost predates the UML context, is:

 

@TechReport{DammH98,
  author =     "Werner Damm
<http://liinwww.ira.uka.de/csbib?query=%2Bau:DammW*+%2Bau:Damm&maxnum=200&so
rt=year>  and David Harel
<http://liinwww.ira.uka.de/csbib?query=%2Bau:HarelD*+%2Bau:Harel&maxnum=200&
sort=year> ",
  title =      "{LSC's}: Breathing Life into Message Sequence Charts",
  number =     "CS98-09",
  institution =  "Weizmann Institute of Science",
  month =      apr,
  year =       "1998",
}

 

http://liinwww.ira.uka.de/cgi-bin/bibshow?e=TF0npefmmjoh/dpodvssfou/tztufnt/
fyqboefe%7d3:96:7
<http://liinwww.ira.uka.de/cgi-bin/bibshow?e=TF0npefmmjoh/dpodvssfou/tztufnt
/fyqboefe%7d3:96:7&r=bibtex&mode=intra> &r=bibtex&mode=intra

 

Also, action languages take an imperative view of system, which seems to be
preferred by the domain users in areas like micro-computing over a
declarative style like the one suggested in the paper. This is distinction
is in parallel with the question of language paradigm in regular programming
languages, i.e. functional, declarative, imperative.

 

Kind regards,

 

Jrn Guy S

  _____  

From: puml-list-request@cs.york.ac.uk
[mailto:puml-list-request@cs.york.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Eduardo Leite
Sent: Sunday, 4 June 2006 09:19
To: puml-list@cs.york.ac.uk
Subject: RE: Re: Questions about action languages

 

Greg,
 
Thanks for the reference. I will take a look in it.
To clarify my second question, I would like to know why UML diagrams,
iteration diagrams in particular, were not sufficient to make the models
precise and complete to be able to generate executable code. What were the
deficiencies found at iteration diagrams? Were sequence/colaboration
diagrams not sufficient?
I did not find any reference that explain these questions. I defined an
action language in my master thesis, and now I am looking for formal
documents/articles explaining why UML diagrams are not precise and, as
consequence, the action language was adopted.

Thanks again,
Eduardo

  _____  


> Subject: Re: Questions about action languages
> From: greg.okeefe@anu.edu.au
> To: puml-list@cs.york.ac.uk
> CC: greg.okeefe@anu.edu.au
> Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 14:46:58 +1000
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To remove yourself from this list please mail
puml-list-request@cs.york.ac.uk
> with a message containing the word "unsubscribe".
> 



  _____  

Comunique-se instantaneamente usando o MSN Messenger! Experimente
gratuitamente a verso beta do Windows Live Search
<http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=6e782662-5f2a-4161-a64a-7f
63644e1f0a>  for Mobile
Received on Sun 04 Jun 2006 - 07:26:40 BST