Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2863Edited by G. Goos, J. Hartmanis, and J. van Leeuwen

3BerlinHeidelbergNew YorkHong KongLondonMilanParisTokyo

Perdita Stevens Jon WhittleGrady Booch (Eds.)

«UML» 2003 –The UnifiedModeling Language

Modeling Languages andApplications

6th International ConferenceSan Francisco, CA, USA, October 20-24, 2003Proceedings

1 3

Volume Editors

Perdita StevensLaboratory for Foundations of Computer ScienceUniversity of EdinburghJCMB, King’s BuildingsMayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UKE-mail: Perdita.Stevens@ed.ac.uk

Jon WhittleQSS Group Inc., NASA Ames Research CenterMS 269-2, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USAE-mail: jonathw@email.arc.nasa.gov

Grady BoochIBM RationalP.O. Box 9027, Boulder, CO 80301-9027, USAE-mail: gbooch@us.ibm.com

Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche BibliothekDie Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at <http://dnb.ddb.de>.

CR Subject Classification (1998): D.2, D.3, K.6, I.6

ISSN 0302-9743ISBN 3-540-20243-9 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material isconcerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,reproduction on microfilms or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publicationor parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965,in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer-Verlag. Violations areliable for prosecution under the German Copyright Law.

Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New Yorka member of BertelsmannSpringer Science+Business Media GmbH

http://www.springer.de

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003Printed in Germany

Typesetting: Camera-ready by author, data conversion by PTP-Berlin GmbHPrinted on acid-free paper SPIN 10961476 06/3142 5 4 3 2 1 0

Preface

The past year has been an eventful one for those interested in software modeling.The first major revision of the Unified Modeling Language, UML2.0, is in theprocess of adoption by the Object Management Group (OMG), and it makesmany long-desired additions and improvements to UML. At the same time, itexpands what was already a large language. A challenge for both practitionersand researchers is to help smooth the adoption of this new language. Increasingly,attention is being paid to the use of specialized languages, often profiles of UML,appropriate for different purposes; this is one way to make UML less overwhel-ming. Accordingly, the focus of the UML conference is gradually expanding fromUML to software modeling in general.

Simultaneously, model-driven development is being pursued as a way of in-creasing the benefits from modeling throughout the software development pro-cess. Gradually, it is developing from a set of slogans into a reality. Many of thepapers in this volume are concerned, directly or indirectly, with how to makemodeling, rather than coding, the heart of software development, and how torealize the resulting benefits of higher-level thinking. Much work remains to bedone.

The UML series of conferences is the leading forum for researchers and prac-titioners to work together to present, discuss and develop innovative ideas aboutUML and related technologies. This conference, the sixth in the series, presen-ted an ideal opportunity to advance the vision of the future of UML and ofmodel-driven development, and to continue to enrich our understanding of howto implement, apply and develop UML, leading to innovations both in researchand in industrial practice.

In total 168 abstracts and 143 papers were submitted to this year’s confe-rence, of which 25 research papers, 4 short tool papers and 1 short experiencepaper were selected by the program committee for presentation. Two panelswere also presented, one on UML2.0 and one taking a broader perspective onmodeling languages. As in previous years, this year’s conference included a two-day tutorial and workshop session, in which 5 tutorials and a record 9 works-hops were scheduled. The primary purpose of these sessions was to provide amore informal forum for discussing state-of-the-art research in modeling langu-ages, especially UML. A short description of the workshops and tutorials is inthese proceedings, and further details can be found at the conference website:http://www.umlconference.org/.

We would like to express our deepest appreciation to the authors of submit-ted papers, tutorials, and workshops, and to the program committee membersand reviewers who did an outstanding job in selecting the very best papers forpresentation. We would also like to thank Ana Moreira who chaired the works-hop selection process, Joao Araujo who chaired the tutorial selection process,and our two panel chairs, Bran Selic and Steve Mellor. We are grateful to Peter

VI

Coad, Nicolas Rouquette and Martin Fowler for agreeing to present invited talksat the conference.

We thank Jennifer Tenzer for help with running the electronic submission andconference management system, and the Laboratory for Foundations of Compu-ter Science at the University of Edinburgh for financially supporting this help.We used CyberChair (http://www.cyberchair.org); we thank Julian Brad-field for advice on adapting it for our particular needs. We thank Sherif Yacoubfor acting as Local Arrangements Chair, Jean-Michel Bruel and Geri Georg fortheir work as Publicity Chairs, Gilda Pour for hers as Tool Exhibition Chair, andKathy Krell, the Registration Chair. We would also like to thank the UML Stee-ring Committee for their advice. In particular, its chair Stuart Kent, Jean-MarcJezequel, who was the Program Committee Chair for UML 2002, and Hein-rich Hussmann, UML 2002 Conference Chair, gave invaluable advice on variousaspects of the running of the conference.

July 2003 Perdita StevensUML 2003 Program Chair

Jon WhittleUML 2003 Conference Chair

Grady BoochUML 2003 General Chair

Organization

Executive Committee

General Chair Grady Booch (IBM Rational, USA)Conference Chair Jon Whittle (QSS/NASA AMES, USA)Program Chair Perdita Stevens (University of Edinburgh, UK)Tutorial Chair Joao Araujo (New University of Lisbon, Portugal)Workshop Chair Ana Moreira (New University of Lisbon,

Portugal)

Organizing Team

Publicity Chairs Jean-Michel Bruel (University of Pau, France)Geri Georg (Colorado State University, USA)

Local Arrangements Chair Sherif Yacoub (Hewlett-Packard Laboratories,USA)

Tools Exhibition Chair Gilda Pour (San Jose State University, USA)Registration Chair Kathy Krell (Colorado State University, USA)

Program Committee

Colin Atkinson (Germany)Jean Bezivin (France)Marko Boger (Germany)Ruth Breu (Austria)Lionel Brand (Canada)David Bustard (UK)Alessandra Cavarra (UK)John Daniels (UK)Stephane Ducasse (Switzerland)Gregor Engels (Germany)Andy Evans (UK)Robert France (USA)Martin Gogolla (Germany)Jeff Gray (USA)Constance Heitmeyer (USA)Brian Henderson-Sellers (Australia)Heinrich Hussmann (Germany)

Jean-Marc Jezequel (France)Haim Kilov (USA)Cris Kobryn (USA)Tim Lethbridge (Canada)Ana Moreira (Portugal)Steve Mellor (USA)Pierre-Alain Muller (France)Ernesto Pimentel Sanchez (Spain)Gianna Reggio (Italy)Bernhard Rumpe (Germany)Bran Selic (Canada)Keng Siau (USA)Jos Warmer (The Netherlands)Alain Wegmann (Switzerland)Alan Wills (UK)

VIII Organization

Sponsors

ACM Special Interest Groupon Software Engineeringhttp://www.acm.org

IEEE Computer Societyhttp://www.ieee.com

Corporate Donors

IBM Rationalhttp://www.rational.com

QSS Group, Inc.http://www.qssgroupinc.com

NASA OSMA,Software Assurance Research Programhttp://www.ivv.nasa.gov/business\newline/research/SARP/

Academic Supporters

Laboratory for Foundationsof Computer Science,School of Informatics,University of Edinburghhttp://www.lfcs.ed.ac.uk

Organization IX

Referees

Aditya AgrawalJoao AraujoEgidio AstesianoPavel BalabkoMarc BalcerBenoit BaudryHubert BaumeisterJulian BradfieldEdna BraunKlaus BurgerCatherine CanevetFei CaoAlexey CherchagoManuel DiazMartin EberleMassimo FeliciJuliana Kuster FilipeStephan FlakeFrederic FondementFrancisco J. GalanMaria del Mar GallardoGeri GeorgSudipto GhoshStephen GilmoreJaime GomezMichael HafnerAbdelwahab Hamou-LhadjMichel HassenforderJan Hendrik HausmannAoife HegartyLoıc HelouetShui-Ming HoChris HolmesThomas JensenClaude JardFalk KemmelRana KhartabilJochen KuesterYvan LabicheYves Le TraonLuis LlopisSten Loecher

Monika MaidlAntonio ManaGirish MaskeriKatharina MehnerPedro MerinoJose Antonio MontenegroHenry MucciniAdam MurrayAndrey NaumenkoOscar PastorCesar A. Gonzalez PerezSimon PickinAndreas PleussNoel PlouzeauDamien PolletGil RegevElvinia RiccobeneSimone RoettgerSuman RoychoudhuryPaul SammutStefan SauerPatrizia ScandurraDevon SimmondsPremkumar SomasundaramJonathan SprinklePhilippe StuderRajesh SudarsanGerson SunyeJennifer TenzerJean Philippe ThibautBernard ThirionSebastian ThoneBhuvan UnhelkarAntonio VallecilloEd WegnerJames WillansHui WuRoel WuytsChuanxi XuChunmin YangWei ZhaoTewfik Ziadi

Table of Contents

Inivited Talk 1

Agile Processes: Developing Your Own “Secret Recipes” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Peter Coad

Practical Model Management

Difference and Union of Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Marcus Alanen, Ivan Porres

GREAT: UML Transformation Tool forPorting Middleware Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Alexander Christoph, Matthias M. Muller

Model-Centric Engineering with the Evolutionand Validation Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Jorn Guy Suß, Andreas Leicher, Herbert Weber, Ralf-D. Kutsche

Time and Quality of Service

Representing Temporal Information in UML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Jordi Cabot, Antoni Olive, Ernest Teniente

Formal Semantics of UML with Real-Time Constructs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Subash Shankar, Sinan Asa

A QoS-Oriented Extension of UML Statecharts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76David N. Jansen, Holger Hermanns, Joost-Pieter Katoen

Short Tool Papers

CheckVML: A Tool for Model Checking Visual Modeling Languages . . . . 92Akos Schmidt, Daniel Varro

A Workbench to Experiment on New ModelEngineering Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Ralph-Johan Back, Dag Bjorklund, Johan Lilius, Luka Milovanov,Ivan Porres

ProGUM-Web: Tool Support for Model-Based Development ofWeb Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Marc Lohmann, Stefan Sauer, Tim Schattkowsky

XII Table of Contents

Composition and Architecture

On the Key Role of Compositioning Object-Oriented Modelling . . . . . . . . . 106Friedrich Steimann, Jens Goßner, Thomas Muck

Compositional and Relational Reasoning during Class Abstraction . . . . . . 121Alexander Egyed

Encoding Informal Architectural Descriptions with UML:An Experience Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Yaojin Yang, Jianli Xu

Inivited Talk 2

UML/MDA Reality Check: Heterogenous Architecture Style . . . . . . . . . . . . 143Nicolas F. Rouquette

Transformation

Towards Automating Source-Consistent UML Refactorings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144Pieter Van Gorp, Hans Stenten, Tom Mens, Serge Demeyer

Model Refactorings as Rule-Based Update Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . 159Ivan Porres

Reflective Model Driven Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175Jean Bezivin, Nicolas Farcet, Jean-Marc Jezequel, Benoıt Langlois,Damien Pollet

The Web

A Model-Driven Runtime Environment for Web Applications . . . . . . . . . . . 190Joerg Pleumann, Stefan Haustein

Using UML and XMI for Generating Adaptive Navigation Sequences inWeb-Based Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Peter Dolog, Wolfgang Nejdl

Platform Independent Web Application Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220Pierre-Alain Muller, Philippe Studer, Jean Bezivin

Testing and Validation

Rigorous Testing by Merging Structural andBehavioral UML Representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

Orest Pilskalns, Anneliese Andrews, Sudipto Ghosh, Robert France

Towards Automated Support for Deriving Test Data fromUML Statecharts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Lionel C. Briand, Jim Cui, Yvan Labiche

Table of Contents XIII

Validation of UML and OCL Models by AutomaticSnapshot Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Martin Gogolla, Jorn Bohling, Mark Richters

Improving UML/OCL

A Critique of UML’s Definition of the Use-Case Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280Sadahiro Isoda

Modelling Database Views with Derived Classes in theUML/OCL-Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

Hermann Balsters

An OCL Extension for Low-Coupling Preserving Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310Isabel Nunes

Invited Talk 3

What Is the Point of the UML? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325Martin Fowler

Consistency

Using Description Logic to Maintain Consistency betweenUML Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

Ragnhild Van Der Straeten, Tom Mens, Jocelyn Simmonds,Viviane Jonckers

Modeling and Testing Legacy Data Consistency Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 341Jan Pettersen Nytun, Christian S. Jensen

The Consistency Workbench: A Tool for Consistency Management inUML-Based Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356

Gregor Engels, Reiko Heckel, Jochen M. Kuster

Methodology

Developing Safety-Critical Systems with UML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360Jan Jurjens

Consistent and Complete Access Control Policies in Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . 373Khaled Alghathbar, Duminda Wijesekera

STAIRS - Steps to Analyze Interactions with Refinement Semantics . . . . . 388Øystein Haugen, Ketil Stølen

Workshops and Tutorials

Workshops at the UML 2003 Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403Ana Moreira

XIV Table of Contents

Tutorials at the UML 2003 Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410Joao Araujo

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415

Preface

The past year has been an eventful one for those interested in software modeling.The first major revision of the Unified Modeling Language, UML2.0, is in theprocess of adoption by the Object Management Group (OMG), and it makesmany long-desired additions and improvements to UML. At the same time, itexpands what was already a large language. A challenge for both practitionersand researchers is to help smooth the adoption of this new language. Increasingly,attention is being paid to the use of specialized languages, often profiles of UML,appropriate for different purposes; this is one way to make UML less overwhel-ming. Accordingly, the focus of the UML conference is gradually expanding fromUML to software modeling in general.

Simultaneously, model-driven development is being pursued as a way of in-creasing the benefits from modeling throughout the software development pro-cess. Gradually, it is developing from a set of slogans into a reality. Many of thepapers in this volume are concerned, directly or indirectly, with how to makemodeling, rather than coding, the heart of software development, and how torealize the resulting benefits of higher-level thinking. Much work remains to bedone.

The UML series of conferences is the leading forum for researchers and prac-titioners to work together to present, discuss and develop innovative ideas aboutUML and related technologies. This conference, the sixth in the series, presen-ted an ideal opportunity to advance the vision of the future of UML and ofmodel-driven development, and to continue to enrich our understanding of howto implement, apply and develop UML, leading to innovations both in researchand in industrial practice.

In total 168 abstracts and 143 papers were submitted to this year’s confe-rence, of which 25 research papers, 4 short tool papers and 1 short experiencepaper were selected by the program committee for presentation. Two panelswere also presented, one on UML2.0 and one taking a broader perspective onmodeling languages. As in previous years, this year’s conference included a two-day tutorial and workshop session, in which 5 tutorials and a record 9 works-hops were scheduled. The primary purpose of these sessions was to provide amore informal forum for discussing state-of-the-art research in modeling langu-ages, especially UML. A short description of the workshops and tutorials is inthese proceedings, and further details can be found at the conference website:http://www.umlconference.org/.

We would like to express our deepest appreciation to the authors of submit-ted papers, tutorials, and workshops, and to the program committee membersand reviewers who did an outstanding job in selecting the very best papers forpresentation. We would also like to thank Ana Moreira who chaired the works-hop selection process, Joao Araujo who chaired the tutorial selection process,and our two panel chairs, Bran Selic and Steve Mellor. We are grateful to Peter

VI

Coad, Nicolas Rouquette and Martin Fowler for agreeing to present invited talksat the conference.

We thank Jennifer Tenzer for help with running the electronic submission andconference management system, and the Laboratory for Foundations of Compu-ter Science at the University of Edinburgh for financially supporting this help.We used CyberChair (http://www.cyberchair.org); we thank Julian Brad-field for advice on adapting it for our particular needs. We thank Sherif Yacoubfor acting as Local Arrangements Chair, Jean-Michel Bruel and Geri Georg fortheir work as Publicity Chairs, Gilda Pour for hers as Tool Exhibition Chair, andKathy Krell, the Registration Chair. We would also like to thank the UML Stee-ring Committee for their advice. In particular, its chair Stuart Kent, Jean-MarcJezequel, who was the Program Committee Chair for UML 2002, and Hein-rich Hussmann, UML 2002 Conference Chair, gave invaluable advice on variousaspects of the running of the conference.

July 2003 Perdita StevensUML 2003 Program Chair

Jon WhittleUML 2003 Conference Chair

Grady BoochUML 2003 General Chair

Organization

Executive Committee

General Chair Grady Booch (IBM Rational, USA)Conference Chair Jon Whittle (QSS/NASA AMES, USA)Program Chair Perdita Stevens (University of Edinburgh, UK)Tutorial Chair Joao Araujo (New University of Lisbon, Portugal)Workshop Chair Ana Moreira (New University of Lisbon,

Portugal)

Organizing Team

Publicity Chairs Jean-Michel Bruel (University of Pau, France)Geri Georg (Colorado State University, USA)

Local Arrangements Chair Sherif Yacoub (Hewlett-Packard Laboratories,USA)

Tools Exhibition Chair Gilda Pour (San Jose State University, USA)Registration Chair Kathy Krell (Colorado State University, USA)

Program Committee

Colin Atkinson (Germany)Jean Bezivin (France)Marko Boger (Germany)Ruth Breu (Austria)Lionel Brand (Canada)David Bustard (UK)Alessandra Cavarra (UK)John Daniels (UK)Stephane Ducasse (Switzerland)Gregor Engels (Germany)Andy Evans (UK)Robert France (USA)Martin Gogolla (Germany)Jeff Gray (USA)Constance Heitmeyer (USA)Brian Henderson-Sellers (Australia)Heinrich Hussmann (Germany)

Jean-Marc Jezequel (France)Haim Kilov (USA)Cris Kobryn (USA)Tim Lethbridge (Canada)Ana Moreira (Portugal)Steve Mellor (USA)Pierre-Alain Muller (France)Ernesto Pimentel Sanchez (Spain)Gianna Reggio (Italy)Bernhard Rumpe (Germany)Bran Selic (Canada)Keng Siau (USA)Jos Warmer (The Netherlands)Alain Wegmann (Switzerland)Alan Wills (UK)

VIII Organization

Sponsors

ACM Special Interest Groupon Software Engineeringhttp://www.acm.org

IEEE Computer Societyhttp://www.ieee.com

Corporate Donors

IBM Rationalhttp://www.rational.com

QSS Group, Inc.http://www.qssgroupinc.com

NASA OSMA,Software Assurance Research Programhttp://www.ivv.nasa.gov/business\newline/research/SARP/

Academic Supporters

Laboratory for Foundationsof Computer Science,School of Informatics,University of Edinburghhttp://www.lfcs.ed.ac.uk

Organization IX

Referees

Aditya AgrawalJoao AraujoEgidio AstesianoPavel BalabkoMarc BalcerBenoit BaudryHubert BaumeisterJulian BradfieldEdna BraunKlaus BurgerCatherine CanevetFei CaoAlexey CherchagoManuel DiazMartin EberleMassimo FeliciJuliana Kuster FilipeStephan FlakeFrederic FondementFrancisco J. GalanMaria del Mar GallardoGeri GeorgSudipto GhoshStephen GilmoreJaime GomezMichael HafnerAbdelwahab Hamou-LhadjMichel HassenforderJan Hendrik HausmannAoife HegartyLoıc HelouetShui-Ming HoChris HolmesThomas JensenClaude JardFalk KemmelRana KhartabilJochen KuesterYvan LabicheYves Le TraonLuis LlopisSten Loecher

Monika MaidlAntonio ManaGirish MaskeriKatharina MehnerPedro MerinoJose Antonio MontenegroHenry MucciniAdam MurrayAndrey NaumenkoOscar PastorCesar A. Gonzalez PerezSimon PickinAndreas PleussNoel PlouzeauDamien PolletGil RegevElvinia RiccobeneSimone RoettgerSuman RoychoudhuryPaul SammutStefan SauerPatrizia ScandurraDevon SimmondsPremkumar SomasundaramJonathan SprinklePhilippe StuderRajesh SudarsanGerson SunyeJennifer TenzerJean Philippe ThibautBernard ThirionSebastian ThoneBhuvan UnhelkarAntonio VallecilloEd WegnerJames WillansHui WuRoel WuytsChuanxi XuChunmin YangWei ZhaoTewfik Ziadi

Table of Contents

Inivited Talk 1

Agile Processes: Developing Your Own “Secret Recipes” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Peter Coad

Practical Model Management

Difference and Union of Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Marcus Alanen, Ivan Porres

GREAT: UML Transformation Tool forPorting Middleware Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Alexander Christoph, Matthias M. Muller

Model-Centric Engineering with the Evolutionand Validation Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Jorn Guy Suß, Andreas Leicher, Herbert Weber, Ralf-D. Kutsche

Time and Quality of Service

Representing Temporal Information in UML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Jordi Cabot, Antoni Olive, Ernest Teniente

Formal Semantics of UML with Real-Time Constructs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Subash Shankar, Sinan Asa

A QoS-Oriented Extension of UML Statecharts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76David N. Jansen, Holger Hermanns, Joost-Pieter Katoen

Short Tool Papers

CheckVML: A Tool for Model Checking Visual Modeling Languages . . . . 92Akos Schmidt, Daniel Varro

A Workbench to Experiment on New ModelEngineering Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Ralph-Johan Back, Dag Bjorklund, Johan Lilius, Luka Milovanov,Ivan Porres

ProGUM-Web: Tool Support for Model-Based Development ofWeb Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Marc Lohmann, Stefan Sauer, Tim Schattkowsky

XII Table of Contents

Composition and Architecture

On the Key Role of Compositioning Object-Oriented Modelling . . . . . . . . . 106Friedrich Steimann, Jens Goßner, Thomas Muck

Compositional and Relational Reasoning during Class Abstraction . . . . . . 121Alexander Egyed

Encoding Informal Architectural Descriptions with UML:An Experience Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Yaojin Yang, Jianli Xu

Inivited Talk 2

UML/MDA Reality Check: Heterogenous Architecture Style . . . . . . . . . . . . 143Nicolas F. Rouquette

Transformation

Towards Automating Source-Consistent UML Refactorings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144Pieter Van Gorp, Hans Stenten, Tom Mens, Serge Demeyer

Model Refactorings as Rule-Based Update Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . 159Ivan Porres

Reflective Model Driven Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175Jean Bezivin, Nicolas Farcet, Jean-Marc Jezequel, Benoıt Langlois,Damien Pollet

The Web

A Model-Driven Runtime Environment for Web Applications . . . . . . . . . . . 190Joerg Pleumann, Stefan Haustein

Using UML and XMI for Generating Adaptive Navigation Sequences inWeb-Based Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Peter Dolog, Wolfgang Nejdl

Platform Independent Web Application Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220Pierre-Alain Muller, Philippe Studer, Jean Bezivin

Testing and Validation

Rigorous Testing by Merging Structural andBehavioral UML Representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

Orest Pilskalns, Anneliese Andrews, Sudipto Ghosh, Robert France

Towards Automated Support for Deriving Test Data fromUML Statecharts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Lionel C. Briand, Jim Cui, Yvan Labiche

Table of Contents XIII

Validation of UML and OCL Models by AutomaticSnapshot Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Martin Gogolla, Jorn Bohling, Mark Richters

Improving UML/OCL

A Critique of UML’s Definition of the Use-Case Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280Sadahiro Isoda

Modelling Database Views with Derived Classes in theUML/OCL-Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

Hermann Balsters

An OCL Extension for Low-Coupling Preserving Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310Isabel Nunes

Invited Talk 3

What Is the Point of the UML? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325Martin Fowler

Consistency

Using Description Logic to Maintain Consistency betweenUML Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

Ragnhild Van Der Straeten, Tom Mens, Jocelyn Simmonds,Viviane Jonckers

Modeling and Testing Legacy Data Consistency Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 341Jan Pettersen Nytun, Christian S. Jensen

The Consistency Workbench: A Tool for Consistency Management inUML-Based Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356

Gregor Engels, Reiko Heckel, Jochen M. Kuster

Methodology

Developing Safety-Critical Systems with UML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360Jan Jurjens

Consistent and Complete Access Control Policies in Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . 373Khaled Alghathbar, Duminda Wijesekera

STAIRS - Steps to Analyze Interactions with Refinement Semantics . . . . . 388Øystein Haugen, Ketil Stølen

Workshops and Tutorials

Workshops at the UML 2003 Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403Ana Moreira

XIV Table of Contents

Tutorials at the UML 2003 Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410Joao Araujo

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415