Re: Help...Verify UML Design

Re: Help...Verify UML Design

From: Andrea Baruzzo <>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:52:04 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Dear Greg,
I am interested to contribute with my toys examples. I am starting to
develop a model for my PhD thesis. When it will be complete, I am
willing to share it with you. In wich format you would expect this
model (and, in general, all the other models in the library)?

I think it will be useful to share not only the (graphical) model, but
also the specifications of the static and dynamic constraints
(expressed using the specification languages avaliable, such as action
language, OCL, Alloy,..). If the presence of many languages can be a
barrier to reuse, we can limit them to OCL, or providing with the
library the best suited tools to work with the specification language
used in the particulat example.

I don't know if it is the right direction to follow. What do you think about it?

On 6/27/06, Greg O'Keefe <> wrote:
> But I thought I'd grab this opportunity to jump on the soap-box again
> and say:  We need a library of models!
> This would be point of comparison for different tools and approaches.
> Some of you might know about TPTP (thousands of problems for theorem
> provers) which is enormously useful to the automated theorem proving
> people. Linguists have huge databases ("corpus") of text.  The famous
> model transformation example (classes -> database schema) was really
> useful in this way.
> I have considered entering a sample of the toy models found in the UML
> formalisation literature into EMF/UML2, which might be a useful
> beginning.  It would be much better to obtain some real-life models from
> industry though.
> Anyone interested?

Dr. Andrea Baruzzo
Laboratorio di Intelligenza Artificiale
Room SSSH, 2nd floor, Stecca Sud
UniversitÓ degli Studi di Udine,
Via delle Scienze 206, 33100 Udine
Office: +39 0432 558435
Received on Tue 27 Jun 2006 - 11:52:08 BST