Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Extending interaction overview diagrams with ac...
View graph of relations

Extending interaction overview diagrams with activity diagram constructs

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Extending interaction overview diagrams with activity diagram constructs. / Whittle, Jon.

In: Software and Systems Modeling, Vol. 9, No. 2, 04.2010, p. 203-224.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Whittle J. Extending interaction overview diagrams with activity diagram constructs. Software and Systems Modeling. 2010 Apr;9(2):203-224. doi: 10.1007/s10270-009-0114-7

Author

Whittle, Jon. / Extending interaction overview diagrams with activity diagram constructs. In: Software and Systems Modeling. 2010 ; Vol. 9, No. 2. pp. 203-224.

Bibtex

@article{af14d1e5497a47f7b3f5ca2b873b8a06,
title = "Extending interaction overview diagrams with activity diagram constructs",
abstract = "UML2.0 introduced interaction overview diagrams (IODs) as a way of specifying relationships between UML interactions. IODs are a variant of activity diagrams that show control flow between a set of interactions. The nodes in an IOD are either inline interactions or references to an interaction. A number of recent papers have defined a formal semantics for IODs. These are restricted, however, to interactions that can be specified using basic sequence diagrams. This excludes the many rich modeling constructs available in activity diagrams such as interruptible regions, activity groups, concurrent node executions, and flow final nodes. It is non-trivial to allow such constructs in IODs because their meaning has to be interpreted in the context of interaction sequences rather than activities. In this paper, we consider how some of these activity diagram constructs can be used practically in IODs. We motivate the integration of these constructs into IODs using a NASA air traffic control subsystem and define a formal semantics for these constructs that builds on an existing semantics definition for IODs.",
keywords = "UML , Interactions , Activity diagrams , Formal semantics",
author = "Jon Whittle",
year = "2010",
month = apr,
doi = "10.1007/s10270-009-0114-7",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "203--224",
journal = "Software and Systems Modeling",
issn = "1619-1366",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Extending interaction overview diagrams with activity diagram constructs

AU - Whittle, Jon

PY - 2010/4

Y1 - 2010/4

N2 - UML2.0 introduced interaction overview diagrams (IODs) as a way of specifying relationships between UML interactions. IODs are a variant of activity diagrams that show control flow between a set of interactions. The nodes in an IOD are either inline interactions or references to an interaction. A number of recent papers have defined a formal semantics for IODs. These are restricted, however, to interactions that can be specified using basic sequence diagrams. This excludes the many rich modeling constructs available in activity diagrams such as interruptible regions, activity groups, concurrent node executions, and flow final nodes. It is non-trivial to allow such constructs in IODs because their meaning has to be interpreted in the context of interaction sequences rather than activities. In this paper, we consider how some of these activity diagram constructs can be used practically in IODs. We motivate the integration of these constructs into IODs using a NASA air traffic control subsystem and define a formal semantics for these constructs that builds on an existing semantics definition for IODs.

AB - UML2.0 introduced interaction overview diagrams (IODs) as a way of specifying relationships between UML interactions. IODs are a variant of activity diagrams that show control flow between a set of interactions. The nodes in an IOD are either inline interactions or references to an interaction. A number of recent papers have defined a formal semantics for IODs. These are restricted, however, to interactions that can be specified using basic sequence diagrams. This excludes the many rich modeling constructs available in activity diagrams such as interruptible regions, activity groups, concurrent node executions, and flow final nodes. It is non-trivial to allow such constructs in IODs because their meaning has to be interpreted in the context of interaction sequences rather than activities. In this paper, we consider how some of these activity diagram constructs can be used practically in IODs. We motivate the integration of these constructs into IODs using a NASA air traffic control subsystem and define a formal semantics for these constructs that builds on an existing semantics definition for IODs.

KW - UML

KW - Interactions

KW - Activity diagrams

KW - Formal semantics

U2 - 10.1007/s10270-009-0114-7

DO - 10.1007/s10270-009-0114-7

M3 - Journal article

VL - 9

SP - 203

EP - 224

JO - Software and Systems Modeling

JF - Software and Systems Modeling

SN - 1619-1366

IS - 2

ER -