Inconsistency Discovery in Multiple State Diagrams

In this article, we introduce a new approach for analyzing UML designs to detect the inconsistencies between multiple state diagrams and sequence diagrams. The Super State Analysis (SSA) identifies the inconsistencies in super states, single step transitions, and sequences. Because SSA considers multiple UML state diagrams, it discovers inconsistencies that cannot be discovered when considering only a single UML state diagram. We have introduced a transition set that captures relationship information that is not specifiable in UML diagrams. The SSA model uses the transition set to link transitions of multiple state diagrams together. The analysis generates three different sets automatically. These sets are compared to the provided sets to detect the inconsistencies. SSA identifies five types of inconsistencies: impossible super states, unreachable super states, illegal transitions, missing transitions, and illegal sequences.

Authors:

• Mohammad N. Alanazi
• David A. Gustafson

Keywords:

• Modeling Languages
• Object-Oriented Analysis
• Sequence Diagrams
• Software Models
• State Diagrams
• UML.

References:

[1] OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, UML 2.0, Object
Management Group, 2006, http://www.uml.org.
[2] O. Pilskalns, A. Andrews, S. Ghosh, & R. France, Rigorous Testing by
Merging Structural and Behavioral UML Representations, Proc. 6th Int.
Conf. on UML, San Francisco, CA, 2003, 234-248.
[3] B. Litvak, S. Tyszberowics, & A.Yehudai, Behavioral Consistency
Validation of UML Diagrams, Proc. 1st Int. Conference on Software
Engineering and Formal Methods, 2003, 118-125.
[4] A. Egyed, Scalable Consistency Checking between Diagrams-The
ViewIntegra Approach, Proc. 16th Annual International Conference on
Automated Software Engineering, 2001, 387-390.
[5] Y. Bontemps, P. Heymans, & P. Schobbens, From Live Sequence Charts
to State Machines and Back: A Guided Tour, IEEE Transactions on
Software Engineering, 31(12), 2005, 999-1014.
[6] Y. Dumond, D. Girardet, & F. Oquendo, A relationship between
sequence and statechart diagram, A Workshop, Proc. Dynamic
Behaviour in UML Models: Semantic Questions, York, UK, 2000.
[7] W. Shen & W. Low, Consistency Checking Between Two Different
Views Of a Software System, Proc. 10th IASTED Int. Conf. on Software
Engineering and Applications, Dallas, TX, 2006.
[8] H. Wang, T. Feng, J. Zhang, & K. Zhang, Consistency check between
behaviour models, Proc. IEEE International Symposium on
Communications and Information Technology, China, 2005, 486-489.
[9] R. Straeten , J. Simmonds & V. Jonckers, Maintaining Consistency
between UML Models Using Description Logic, Journal S'erie L'objet -
logiciel, base de donn'ees, r'eseaux, 10(2-3), 2004, 231-244.
[10] R. Wagner, H. Giese, & U. Nickel, A Plug-In for Flexible and
Incremental Consistency Management, Proc. International Conference
on the UML 2003, San Francisco, October 2003, 78-85.
[11] A. Egyed, Instant consistency checking for the UML, Proc. 28th
International Conference on Software Engineering, China, 2006, 381-
390.
[12] H. Gomaa & D. Wijesekera, Consistency in Multiple-View UML
Models: A Case Study, Proc. of Workshop on Consistency Problems in
UML-based Software Development, 6th Int. Conf. on the UML, San
Francisco, 2003.1-8.
[13] P. Krishnan, Consistency Checks for UML, Proc. 7th Asia-Pacific
Software Engineering Conference, Singapore, 2000, 162-169.
[14] S. Kim & D. Carrington, A Formal Object-Oriented Approach to
defining Consistency Constraints for UML Models, Proc. of the 2004
Australian Software Engineering Conference Australia, 2004, 87-94.
[15] L. Kuzniarz & M. Staron, Inconsistencies in Student Designs, Proc. 2nd
Workshop on Consistency Problems in UML-based Software
Development, San Francisco, CA, 2003, 9-18.
[16] Z. Pap, I. Majzik, A. Pataricza, & A. Szegi, Completeness and
Consistency Analysis of UML Statechart Specifications, Proc. IEEE
Design and Diagnostics of Electronic Circuits and Systems Workshop,
Hungary, April, 2001, 83-90.