Mapping UML 2.0 Activities to Zero-Safe Nets

Sabine Boufenara, Faiza Belala, Kamel Barkaoui

CEDRIC-CNAM, Rue Saint-Martin, Paris, France.
LIRE Laboratory, Mentouri University of Constantine, Algeria.

DOI: 10.4236/jsea.2010.35048                

Abstract

UML 2.0 activity diagrams (ADs) are largely used as a modeling language for flow-oriented behaviors in software and business processes. Unfortunately, their place/transition operational semantics is unable to capture and preserve semantics of the newly defined high-level activities constructs such as Interruptible Activity Region. Particularly, basic Petri nets do not preserve the non-locality semantics and reactivity concept of ADs. This is mainly due to the absence of global synchronization mechanisms in basic Petri nets. Zero-safe nets are a high-level variant of Petri nets that ensure transitions global coordination thanks to a new kind of places, called zero places. Indeed, zero-safe nets naturally address Interruptible Activity Region that needs a special semantics, forcing the control flow by external events and defining a certain priority level of executions. Therefore, zero-safe nets are adopted in this work as semantic framework for UML 2.0 activity diagrams.

Keywords

UML Activity Diagrams Formalization, Interruptible Activity Region, Zero-Safe Nets

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	“OMG Unified Modelling Language: Superstructure,” Fi- nal Adopted Specification Version 2.0,Technical Report, Object Management Group, November 2003. http://www .omg.org
[2]	T. Schttkowsky and A. Föster, “On the Pitfalls of UML 2 Activity Modeling,” International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering, Minneapolis, IEEE Computer Society, 2007.
[3]	H. Störrle and J. H. Hausmann, “Towards a Formal Semantics of UML 2.0 Activities,” Software Engineering Vol. 64, 2005, pp. 117-128.
[4]	T. Murata, “Petri Nets: Properties, Analysis and Appli- cations,” Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 77, No. 4, April 1989, pp. 541-580.
[5]	E. Borger and R. Stark, “Abstract State Machines,” Sprin- ger Verlag, 2003.
[6]	R. Bruni and U. Montanari, “Zero-Safe Nets, or Transition Synchronization Made Simple,” In C. Palamidessi and J. Parrow, Eds., Proceedings of the 4th workshop on Expre- ssiveness in Concurrency, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, Santa Margherita Ligure, Elsevier Science, Vol. 7, 1997.
[7]	J. P. Barros and L. Gomes, “Actions as Activities and Activities as Petri Nets,” In Jan J¨urjens, Bernhard Rumpe, Robert France, and Eduardo B. Fernandey, Eds., UML 2003 Workshop on Critical Systems Development with UML, San Francisco, 2003, pp. 129-135.
[8]	T. S. Staines, “Intuitive Mapping of UML 2 Activity Diagrams into Fundamental Modeling,” “Concept Petri Net Diagrams and Colored Petri Nets,” 15th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engi- neering of Computer Based Systems, Belfast, 2008.
[9]	H. Störrle, “Semantics of Exceptions in UML 2.0 Acti- vities,” Journal of Software and Systems Modeling, 9 May 2004. www.pst.informatik.uni-muenchen.de/stoerrle
[10]	H. Störrle, “Semantics of Control-Flow in UML 2.0 Activities,” In N.N. Ed., Proceedings IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, Rome, Springer Verlag, 2004.
[11]	H. Störrle, “Semantics and Verification of Data Flow in UML 2.0 Activities,” Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 127, No. 4, 2005, pp. 35-52. www. pst.informatik.uni-muenchen.de/-stoerrle
[12]	H. Störrle, “Semantics and Verification of Data-Flow in UML 2.0 Activities,” Proceedings International Work- shop on Visual Languages and Formal Methods, IEEE Press, 2004, pp. 38-52. www.pst.informatik.uni-muench en.de/_stoerrle
[13]	R. Eshuis and R. Wieringa. “Comparing Petri Net and Activity Diagram Variants for Workflow Modelling–A Quest for Reactive Petri Nets,” In Weber et al. Petri Net Technology for Communication Based Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2472, 2002, pp. 321-351.
[14]	R. Eshuis and R. Wieringa. “A Real-Time Execution Semantics for UML Activity Diagrams,” In H. Hussmann, Ed., Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Genova, Springer Verlag, Vol. 2029, 2001, pp. 76-90.
[15]	R. Eshuis and R. Wieringa. “An Execution Algorithm for UML Activity Graphs,” Proceedings of the 4th Interna- tional Conference on The Unified Modeling Language, Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Toronto, Springer Verlag, Vol. 2185, 2001, pp. 47-61.
[16]	S. Boufenara, F. Belala and C. Bouanaka, “Les Zero-Safe Nets Pour la Préservation de la TTC Dans les Diagrammes d’activité d’UML, ” “Revue des Nouvelles Technologies de l’Information RNTI-L-3,” Cépaduès éditions, 15ème Conférence Internationnale sur les Langages et Modèles à Objets : LMO, 2009, pp. 91-106.
[17]	S. Boufenara, F. Belala and N. Debnath, “On Formalizing UML 2.0 Activities: Stream and Exception Parameters,” 22nd International Conference on Computers and Their Applications in Industry and Engineering CAINE-2009, San Francisco, 4-6 November 2009.
[18]	C. Bock, “UML 2 Activity and Action Models,” Part 6: Structured Activities, 2005. http://www.jot.fm/issues/issue _2005_05/column4
[19]	R. Bruni and U. Montanari, “Transactions and Zero-Safe Nets,” In: H. Ehrig, G. Juhás, J. Padberg and G. Rozenberg, Eds., Proceedings of Advances in Petri Nets: Unifying Petri Nets, Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science, Springer Verlag, Vol. 2128, 2001, pp. 380-426.