Mapping UML 2.0 Activities to Zero-Safe Nets
- 1 LIRE Laboratory, Mentouri University of Constantine, Algeria
- 2 LIRE Laboratory, Mentouri University of Constantine, Algeria
- 3 CEDRIC-CNAM, Rue Saint-Martin, Paris, France
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.
- “OMG Unified Modelling Language: Superstructure,” Fi- nal Adopted Specification Version 2.0,Technical Report, Object Management Group, November 2003. http://www .omg.org
- 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.
- H. Störrle and J. H. Hausmann, “Towards a Formal Semantics of UML 2.0 Activities,” Software Engineering Vol. 64, 2005, pp. 117-128.
- T. Murata, “Petri Nets: Properties, Analysis and Appli- cations,” Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 77, No. 4, April 1989, pp. 541-580.
- E. Borger and R. Stark, “Abstract State Machines,” Sprin- ger Verlag, 2003.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.