UML vs. classical vs. rhapsody statecharts: not all models are created equal

被引:27
作者
Crane, Michelle L. [1 ]
Dingel, Juergen [1 ]
机构
[1] Queens Univ, Sch Comp, Kingston, ON, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.1007/s10270-006-0042-8
中图分类号
TP31 [计算机软件];
学科分类号
081202 ; 0835 ;
摘要
State machines, represented by statecharts or state machine diagrams, are an important formalism for behavioural modelling. According to the research literature, the most popular statechart formalisms appear to be Classical, UML, and that implemented by Rhapsody. These three formalisms seem to be very similar; however, there are several key syntactic and semantic differences. These differences are enough that a model written in one formalism could be ill-formed in another formalism. Worse, a model from one formalism might actually be well-formed in another, but be interpreted differently due to the semantic differences. This paper summarizes the results of an informal comparative study of these three formalisms with the help of several illustrative examples. We present a classification of the differences according to the nature of potential problems caused by each difference. In addition, for each difference we discuss how translation between formalisms can be achieved, if at all.
引用
收藏
页码:415 / 435
页数:21
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]   Analysis of recursive state machines [J].
Alur, R ;
Benedikt, M ;
Etessami, K ;
Godefroid, P ;
Reps, T ;
Yannakakis, M .
ACM TRANSACTIONS ON PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES AND SYSTEMS, 2005, 27 (04) :786-818
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2000, UNIFIED MODELING LAN, DOI DOI 10.1007/3-540-40011-7_10
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1994, LNCS
[4]   THE ESTEREL SYNCHRONOUS PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE - DESIGN, SEMANTICS, IMPLEMENTATION [J].
BERRY, G ;
GONTHIER, G .
SCIENCE OF COMPUTER PROGRAMMING, 1992, 19 (02) :87-152
[5]  
Crane Michelle L., 2005, 2005501 QUEENS U SCH
[6]  
Damm W, 1998, LECT NOTES COMPUT SC, V1536, P186, DOI 10.1007/3-540-49213-5_8
[7]  
DOUGLASS BP, 2004, OBJECT TECHNOLOGY SE
[8]  
GOGOLLA M, 1998, P ICSE 98 WORKSH PRE, P55
[9]  
Harel D., 1987, Proceedings of the Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (Cat. No.87CH2464-6), P54
[10]  
Harel D., 1996, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, V5, P293, DOI 10.1145/235321.235322