1. Peterson J.L.: Petri nets. ACM Comput. Surv.9, 223–252 (1977)

   Article MATH  Google Scholar 

2. Bibliowicz, A.: A graph grammar-based formal validation of an object-process diagram, M.Sc. Thesis, Technion, Israel. Available athttp://www.vainolo.com/files/research/A-Graph-Grammar-Based-Formal-Validation-of-an-Object-Process-Diagram.pdf (2008)

3. Breu, R., Hinkel, U., Hofmann, C., Klein, C., Paech, B., Rumpe, B., Thurner, V.: Towards a formalization of the unified modeling language. In: ECOOP—11th European Conference in Object-Oriented Programming. LNCS, vol. 1241, pp. 344–366. Springer, Berlin (1997)

4. Bruel, J., France, R.B.: Transforming UML models to formal specifications. Available athttp://www.cs.york.ac.uk/puml/papers/brueluml98.pdf (1998)

5. Corradini A., Ehrig H., Heckel R., Löwe M., Montanari U., Rossi F.: Algebraic approaches to graph transformation, part I: basic concepts and double pushout approach. In: Rozenberg, G. (eds) Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation. Foundations, vol. 1. World Scientific, Singapore (1997)

   Google Scholar 

6. Dori D.: Object-process methodology: a holistic systems paradigm. Springer, New York (2002)

   Google Scholar 

7. Dori, D., Linchevski, C., Manor, R.: OPCAT—a software environment for object-process methodology based conceptual modeling of complex systems. In: Proceedings 1st International Conference on Modelling and Management of Engineering Processes. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, pp. 147–151 (2010)

8. Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Habel, A., Pennemann, K.: Constraints and application conditions: from graphs to high-level structures. In: ICGT 2004–2nd International Conference in Graph Transformations. LNCS, vol. 3256, pp. 287–303. Springer, Berlin (2004)

9. Ehrig, H., Heckel, R., Korff, M., Löwe, M., Ribeiro, L., Wagner, A., Corradini, A.: Algebraic approaches to graph transformation. Part II: single pushout approach and comparison with double pushout approach. In: Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation. Foundations, Vol. I, pp. 247–312. World Scientific, Singapore (1997)

10. Evans, A., France, R.B., Lano, K., Rumpe, B.: The UML as a formal modeling notation. In: UML ‘98: Selected papers from the First International Workshop on The Unified Modeling Language UML. LNCS, vol. 1618, pp. 336–348. Springer, Berlin (1999)

11. France R.B., Ghosh S., Dinh-Trong T., Solberg A.: Model-driven development using UML 2.0: promises and pitfalls. Computer39(2), 59 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

12. Gogolla, M., Parisi-Presicce, F.: State diagrams in UML: a formal semantics using graph transformations. In: Broy, M., Coleman, D., Maibaum, Tom S.E., Rumpe, B. (eds.) Proceedings PSMT’98 Workshop on Precise Semantics for Modeling Techniques. Technische Universitat München, TUM-I9803 (1998)

13. Kuske S., Gogolla M., Kreowski H.J., Ziemann P.: Towards an integrated graph-based semantics for UML. Softw. Syst. Model.8(3), 385–401 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

14. Habel A., Heckel R., Taentzer G.: Graph grammars with negative application conditions. Fundam. Inf.26(3–4), 287–313 (1996)

    MathSciNet MATH  Google Scholar 

15. Heckel, R.: Embedding of conditional graph transformations. In: Valiente F.G., Rosello, L.F. (eds) Proceedings Colloquium on Graph Transformation and its Application in Computer Science, Technical Report B-19, Universitat de les Illes Balears (1995)

16. Jürjens, J.: A UML statecharts semantics with message-passing. In: SAC—Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1009–1013 (2002)

17. Kobryn C.: UML 3.0 and the future of modeling. Softw. Syst. Model.3(1), 4–8 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

18. Kong, J., Zhang, K., Dong, J., Song, G.: A graph grammar approach to software architecture verification and transformation. In: COMPSAC ‘03—Proceedings of the 27th Annual International Conference on Computer Software and Applications, p. 492. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2003)

19. Kuske, S.: A formal semantics of UML state machines based on structured graph transformation. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language, Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 241–256. Springer, Berlin (2001)

20. Mwaluseke, G.W., Bowen, J.P.: UML Formalisation Literature Survey, athttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.119.9075 (2001)

21. Nestor, A.O.: Modeling of large and complex applications with UML, athttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.4.3347

22. Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language (UML) 2.0 Infrastructure Specification, athttp://www.uml.org/ (2003)

23. Reinhartz-Berger I., Dori D.: A reflective metamodel of object-process methodology: the system modeling building blocks. In: Green, P., Rosemann, M. (eds) Business Systems Analysis with Ontologies, Idea Group, Alberta (2005)

    Google Scholar 

24. Snook C., Butler M.: UML-B: formal modeling and design aided by UML. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.15(1), 92–122 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

25. Soffer P., Golany B., Dori D., Wand Y.: Modelling off-the-shelf information systems requirements: an ontological approach. Requir. Eng.6(3), 183–199 (2001)

    Article MATH  Google Scholar 

26. Spivey J.M.: The Z notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice-Hall, Inc, Upper Saddle River (1989)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

27. Störrle, H., Hausmann, J.H.: Towards a Formal Semantics of UML 2.0 Activities. In: Software Engineering, pp. 117–128 (2005)

28. Tchertchago, A.: Formal Semantics for a UML Fragment Using UML/OCL Metamodeling, athttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.9.5869 (2002)

29. Thomas D.: MDA: revenge of the modelers or UML Utopia?. IEEE Softw.21(3), 15–17 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

30. USA Department of Defense: DoD Architecture Framework Version 2.0, athttp://cio-nii.defense.gov/sites/dodaf20/index.html (2009)

31. Vanderperren, Y., Dehaene, W.: UML 2 and SysML: an approach to deal with complexity in SoC/NoC Design. In: DATE, pp. 716–717 (2005)

32. Wand Y., Weber R.: On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. J. Inform. Syst.3(4), 217–237 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

33. Ziemann P., Hölscher K., Gogolla M.: From UML models to graph transformation systems. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci.127(4), 17–33 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references