1、- c PLEASE NOTE This document is normally accompanied by a disk/dish wnen purchased in hardcopy. The dislddisks contain information which would be of no value as a hardcopy document. If you require a copy of the diskldisb, please use the contact information below for your request. When submitting yo
2、ur request, please have the following irzfonnation vuiizble: Your company name/account number Originating orsanisacion Document number USMCanada Enformation Handling Services E-mail Te!: 800-U$-3352 Outside USAiCanada Except the United I(ingdom) Information Handling Services E-mai Te!: i 1-303-790
3、-0600 Technic3 Tz!: (O Fax: (O United Kingdom Indexes Ltd 344) 404409, Custoinet Support 34.1) 40442 I, Ccistoiner Suppori In formation Handing Senices and Teclinicai Indexer - Cortitiziad to Service Excellence ETSI TR I02 205 1.1.1 (2003-05) Technical Repor Methods for Testing and Specification (MT
4、S); UML 2.0 action syntax feasibility study 2 ETSI TR 102 205 VI .I .I (2003-05) Reference DTR/MTS-00084 Keywords UML, MTS ETSI 650 Route des Lucioles F-O6921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex - FRANCE Tel.: +33 4 92 94 42 O0 Fax: +33 4 93 65 47 16 Siret No 348 623 562 00017 - NAF 742 C Association but non luc
5、ratif enregistre la Sous-prfecture de Grasse (06) No 7803/88 Important notice Individual copies of the present document can be downloaded from: http:lwmv.etsi .arq The present document may be made available in more than one electronic version or in print. In any case of existing or perceived differe
6、nce in contents between such versions, the reference version is the Portable Document Format (PDF). In case of dispute, the reference shall be the printing on ETSI printers of the PDF version kept on a specific network drive within ETSI Secretariat. Users of the present document should be aware that
7、 the document may be subject to revision or change of status. Information on the current status of this and other ETSI documents is available at ha p:/pa rta I. etsi I a rgltbistat uslstatus .as p If you find errors in the present document, send your comment to: Cori vriaht Notifica tion No part may
8、 be reproduced except as authorized by written permission. The copyright and the foregoing restriction extend to reproduction in all media. O European Telecommunications Standards Institute 2003. All rights reserved. DECTTM, PLUGTESTSTMand UMTSTMare Trade Marks of ETSI registered for the benefit of
9、its Members. TIPHONTM and the TIPHON logo are Trade Marks currently being registered by ETSI for the benefit of its Members. 3GPPTM is a Trade Mark of ETSI registered for the benefit of its Members and of the 3GPP Organizational Partners. ETSI 3 ETSI TR 102 205 VI .I .I (2003-05) Contents Intellectu
10、al Property Rights . . . . . .4 Foreword 1 2 3 3.1 3.2 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 5 5.1 5.2 6 7 8 8.1 9 Scope 5 References . . . .5 Definitions and abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 5 6 Background . .6 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . .
12、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UML - pros and cons Tools availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SDL investments . . . . . . . . .
14、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What is wanted from UML? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 7 8 Action syntax in UML . . . .8 Action semantics in UML . . 9 UML profile .9 9 Recommended action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O UML for describing communication systems UML for standard specification What is a UML profile? Annex A: Feasibility study on using tra
17、nsition system semantics for specifying semantics of UML diagrams in the context of the MTS-UML project 11 History 12 ETSI 4 ETSI TR 102 205 VI .I .I (2003-05) Intellectual Property Rights IPRs essential or potentially essential to the present document may have been declared to ETSI. The information
18、 pertaining to these essential IPRs, if any, is publicly available for ETSI members and non-members, and can be found in ETSI SR 000 314: “Intellectual Property Rights (7PRs); Essential, orpotentially Essential, IPRs notlJied to ETSI in respect ofETSI standards“, which is available from the ETSI Sec
19、retariat. Latest updates are available on the ETSI Web server (5). All published ETSI deliverables shall include information which directs the reader to the above source of information. Foreword This Technical Report (TR) has been produced by ETSI Technical Committee Methods for Testing and Specific
20、ation (MTS). ETSI 5 ETSI TR 102 205 VI .I .I (2003-05) 1 Scope The present document is a study on the feasibility of defining an action syntax for UML 2.0 for possible use in standardization. In addition, the need for an action semantics is discussed as well as what needs to be done in order to defi
21、e a UML profile. 2 Re fe re nces For the purposes of this Technical Report (TR) the following references apply: il 21 31 41 ITU-T Recommendation Z. 100: “Specification and Description Language (SDL)“. ITU-T Recommendation Z. 120: “Message Sequence Chart (MSC)“. OMG: “United Modeling Language UML 1.5
22、“. OMG: “United Modeling Language UML 2.0; Infrastructure; acU00-09-0 1 and Superstructure; acUO0-09-02“. 51 61 ITU-T Recommendation Z. 109: “SDL Combined with UML“ ETSI EG 201 872: “Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); Methodological approach to the use of object-orientation in the standard
23、s making process“. 3 3.1 Definitions and abbreviations De fi nit ions For the purposes of the present document, the following terms and definitions apply: action syntax: concrete textual or graphical language constructs needed to spec detailed behaviour EXAMPLE: the graphical symbol to indicate the
24、setting of a timer, the textual statement to perform an assignment, etc. action semantics: actual meaning and definition of actions EXAMPLE: how a message is handled when it is sent and how execution may (or may not) continue directly afterwards, in what order (and how) assignment expressions are ev
25、aluated dynamically. UML profile: extension mechanism provided by UML EXAMPLE: With a profile it is possible to add language constructs, to restrict existing language constructs and to define special semantics for language constructs. ETSI 6 ETSI TR 102 205 VI .I .I (2003-05) 3.2 Abbreviations For t
26、he purposes of the present document, the following abbreviations apply: ASN. 1 MSC Message Sequence Charts OCL Object Constraint Language OMG Object Management Group. NOTE: SDL Specification and Description Language UML Unified Modeling Language Abstract Syntax Notation 1 Standard body recommending
27、UML, CORBA, IDL, etc. 4 Background SDL i and MSC 2 are used frequently today for standard specification, both in ETSI and in other organizations. The use of UML in standardization is increasing. ETSI MTS has contributed with a guide (EG 201 872 6) which presents a process for using UML in the standa
28、rds-making process. 4.1 UML - pros and cons Feasibility for communication standards. UML 3 has up to now not been a real competitor to SDL for the use of describing standard specifications. The latest UML recommendation (UML 1.5 4) still lacks precision and formality compared to SDL. SDL also has a
29、longer history in the communications industry, which has affected the graphical syntax of the language that is more targeted towards the needs for protocol specification, for example. The lack of precision of UML is currently changing, as UML is currently being revised. The forthcoming UML 2.0 4 wil
30、l: have a more well-defined semantics; and have better means for customizing, restricting and extending the language in so-calledyrofiles. Richness of UML. UML is a graphical modeling language that is well-known for its applicability in many different application areas and purposes: UML has a wide s
31、et of different diagram notations that can be used in isolation or as part of a complete model; UML offers diagram notations that are well-suited for process modeling and requirements modeling (use cases). UML knowledge. UML is a widely used and accepted language. This is a major difference, compare
32、d to SDL and MSC, which are mostly known and used in parts of the real-time software industry (especially the communication industry). ETSI 7 ETSI TR 102 205 VI .I .I (2003-05) 4.2 Tools avai la bi I i ty The market for SDL and MSC tools has increased rapidly the last decade. However, the number of
33、tool providers has decreased significantly during the same period. One cause may be that several non-commercial and in-house tools have been put to sleep either because there is not the same amount of SDL-related research at universities today or because the high cost of maintaining these tools. Ano
34、ther reason can be that UML is perceived as a more attractive and less specialized language compared to SDL and thus offers a wider market for tool vendors. Another issue is that SDL tool vendors may gradually shift their focus to UML, as the language is continually improving. 4.3 SDL investments ET
35、SI (as well as other standardization organizations) has made large investments in SDL: investments in SDL-based tools; investments in SDL and MSC language and methodology knowledge and tool experience; investments in standards that have SDL and MSC specifications as normative (and non-normative) par
36、ts of the standard; which often also needs to be maintained for a number of years ahead. 5 What is wanted from UML? When looking at what is wanted from UML, the perspective will differ depending on: application domain, i.e. telecom development, protocol development, etc; process-dependent usage, i.e
37、. standard specification, requirements analysis, design, etc. People used to SDL and MSC may also favour certain constructs, abstractions and semantics from those languages. In order to be able to narrow down all possibilities, this report will focus on UML usage: 1) 2) that is feasible for describi
38、ng communication systems in particular; that is feasible for standard specification of protocols in particular. 5.1 UML for describing communication systems When looking at language features that are needed or wanted for the description of communication systems, it is natural to compare with SDL, be
39、cause of its 25-year track record within that industry. UML 2 will include several of the relevant features that exist in SDL, including: diagrams and constructs to spec distribution and component architecture in a detailed way, as well as the detailed communication structure; ready-to-use abstracti
40、ons for signal sending and receiving, etc. ETSI 8 ETSI TR 102 205 VI .I .I (2003-05) The following is a list of wanted features that are lacking in UML 2: using ASN. 1 models for signal data; a set of predefined data types with operators for convenience; timers and timer handling; a textual action s
41、yntax; graphical symbols for common actions, e.g. operation call, object creation, timer set and reset, etc; detailed action semantics. Note that this list only includes a few examples and is not a complete list. 5.2 UML for standard specification When it comes to the specific use of UML for making
42、a standard specification, most of the wanted and needed constructs will be the same as the ones identified in the previous clause. There are, however, a number of additional features that may be wanted: concepts to avoid over-specification, e.g. ANY, under-specified message parameters, informal deci
43、sion, task and operation; concepts to support the description of variant systems; e.g. transition option, select. For standard specification usage, it may also be preferred to restrict the language (compared to the complete UML or compared to “UML for communicating systems“) in order to avoid that s
44、pecifications are made unnecessarily complex and detailed. Limitations might, for example, include: use of exceptions; use of shared variable data between distributed components; no redefined transitions in specialized active classes; a subset of the diagram notations, etc. Note that these restricti
45、ons would only apply to UML models used as the “end product“ (the standard specification) of a communications standard, i.e. not when UML is used in the process of producing the standard specification. It is also especially important for specifications that the UML model is intuitive and that the gr
46、aphical features of the language are utilized to their full potential. This will probably best be ensured by language guidelines, similar to the SDL and MSC guidelines that ETSI has produced. 6 Action syntax in UML UML 2 includes a number of actions, including: composite action; read and write actio
47、ns; computation actions (e.g. mathematical functions); collection actions (actions on multiple objects): - iteration actions; - conditional actions; asynchronous request (send) and synchronous request (call); ETSI 9 ETSI TR 102 205 VI .I .I (2003-05) jump action; new and delete actions. For communic
48、ation systems, a number of additional actions can be identified. The built-in, as well as the additional actions need to have a concrete textual syntax and where applicable also a corresponding graphical symbol. The textual syntax is needed in order to guarantee portability of models as well as tool
49、 independency. The additional graphical syntax is needed in order to make sure that specification models are kept readable and intuitive. 7 Action semantics in UML If full portability of models in terms of also supporting a detailed interpretation of the execution of models is wanted, then further additions to UML are needed, namely to detail
