What is the rationale behind Branch and Merge using the same symbol?
I find it confusing, because you can't rely on the shape to know whether there's a conditional going on or not.
Is there some other standard symbol or symbol variation I can use? I would rather avoid connecting many arrows to the same endpoint, because it makes it difficult to follow the diagram. But I'd also like to differentiate between conditionals and merge points.
Note that this question has nothing to do with Fork and Join, which deal with concurrency and are represented by a black rectangle.
The reason probably is that you are allowed to combine the two in a single node.
UML 2.5 specs state:
The functionality of a MergeNode and a DecisionNode can be combined by using the same node symbol, as shown in Figure 15.34. At most one of the incoming flows may be annotated as a decisionInputFlow. This notation maps to a model containing a MergeNode with all the incoming edges shown in the diagram and one outgoing edge to a DecisionNode that has all the outgoing edges shown in the diagram.
Related
In the context of bounded model checking, one describes the system as a State Transition System and the properties that need to be checked.
When one needs to provide multiple system descriptions and properties to the Model Checker Tool, it can become tedious to write the property by hand. In my case, I use some temporal logic.
How does one automate the process of translating/parsing the system description and deriving verifiable properties from it (ideally, a set of Initial states, Transitions, Set of States).
For example, consider the Microwave Example given here Given such a system description, how can I arrive at the specifications in an efficient manner?
There is no such open source tool that I know of, that can do this. Any approaches in terms of ideas, theories are welcome.
You can't automatically derive LTL formulae from automata as you suggest, because automata are more expressive than LTL formulae.
That leaves you with mainly two options: 1. find a verification tool which accepts specifications that are directly expressed as automata (I'm not sure which ones do, but I suspect it is worth checking SPIN and NuSMV for this feature.), or 2. use a meta-specification language that makes the writing of specifications easier; for example, https://www.isp.uni-luebeck.de/salt (doi: 10.1007/11901433_41) or IEE1850/PSL. While PSL is more a language definition for tool-implementors, SALT already offers a web front-end that translates your input straight into LTL.
(By the way, I find your approach methodologically challenging though: you're not supposed to derive formulae from your model, but from your initial system description as it is this very model which you're going to verify. But I am not a 100% sure, if I understood this point in your question correctly.)
I think properties of a system, e.g. Microwave system, come from technical and common sense expectation and requirements, not the model. E.g. microwave is supposed to cook the food. But it is not supposed to cook with door open. Nevertheless a repository of typical LTL pattern can be useful to define properties. It also lists properties along with more familiar regex and automata properties.
If you certain you still want to translate automata to LTL automatically check
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/96963/translate-a-buchi-automaton-to-ltl
Kansas Specification Property Repository
http://patterns.projects.cs.ksu.edu/documentation/patterns.shtml
Can UML activity diagram have decision without a decision node or is it wrong? I mean, is it required to use the decision node (diamond symbol) to represent conditions?
It is legal UML. Only fUML gets formal about how a value flows into a decision for guard conditions to be compared.
No,
in activity diagram you can also use a much more elaborated element: Conditional Node - is a structured activity node that represents an exclusive choice among some number of alternatives.
It also could exist in variant "conditional node with regions".
If your decision has the sense of loop, you can use a Loop Node instead.
Also, as in UML it is allowed to combine elements from different diagrams, you can use Alt or Loop combined fragments from Sequence Diagram elements.
You can also use Sequence Node in activity diagram and hide the decision inside it.
Also, you can always hide the decision in the arithmetic actions. But being acceptable in code, this way is bad in diagrams - you make them for better understanding the subject, not for shortening the code.
Following this post from Neo4j's google group I have to say that I don't see any benefits when using this multiple-label-thing but rather, on the contrary, IMHO it just adds complexity for what a uniqueness constraint is. It could also tempt the user to introduce inheritance into the data model which would cause frustration since that's not possible at all...
Labels have not the notion of just representing a type, they are rather roles which are viable in different contexts.
So in one role, certain attributes and relationships of a node might matter and in another role (label) a different set (that might intersect with the first one).
We stayed away from inheritance as it opens a new can of worms, and we favor composition. So you'd rather compose a node whole as the sum of its parts. You can also mimic an inheritance by also attaching the "super"-types as labels to the child elements in your hierarchy.
Node labels can also be used to separate subgraphs in a larger graph, e.g. label the proteins that are active in human pathways and phylo pathways with those labels. So you can quickly select a part of the graph that you're interested in.
Those separate subgraphs can also come from different domains, like geo,social,catalogue,supplier that are combined in a single graph.
And multiple labels also make sense to separate "technical" namespaces of your graph that are used to represent "in-graph-indexes" from your "domain"-labels.
Regarding uniqueness - all uniqueness constraints for the existing labels and properties on your nodes are enforced at the same time. If they cannot be resolved on insert or update the operation will fail.
Just for my personal wiki, I want to draw a diagram that shows how a message is processed via a couple of Message Queues.
(Like, xml message comes from source1 to the Queue1, then it is passed to a system where the message is converted into another format and...)
What kind of UML diagram should I need here?
And additionally, how do I show a Queue in UML?
Order and time are best seen in an Sequence diagram. Also the communication between the different parts (source, queues) and parameters will be visible.
A queue is just an object (the squares at the top of the diagram).
Sequence Diagrams are a good choice but they have limitations when used for interactions with a large number of steps. They excel at describing the steps to a single operation, such that the actors are related to the behavior required. I try not to left any single sequence diagram take up more than one page. If I need more, I break it up into two serarate diagrams because I'm usually wasting whitespace due to the calling depth and the interacting quickly becomes harder to understand instead of easier.
You might use two types of diagrams. On a system-level diagram, show the interaction between the queues (or their hosts), and on a Sequence Diagram show the steps taken within a single host.
I think that the best good is an activity diagram. In my view it is the best way too show process flow. Sequence diagrams are harder to understand and also has a lot of clutter (the lifelines) which just bother the reader. And having two diagrams just makes things complicated
Looking at all the examples of Operational Transformation Frameworks out there, they all seem to resolve around the transformation of changes to plain text documents. How would an OT framework be used for more complex objects?
I'm wanting to dev a real-time sticky notes style app, where people can co-create sticky notes, change their positon and text value. Would I be right in assuming that the position values wouldn't be transformed? (I mean, how would they, you can't merge them right?). However, I would want to use an OT framework to resolve conflicts with the posit-its value, correct?
I do not see any problem to use Operational Transformation to work with Complex Objects, what you need is to define what operations your OT system support and how concurrency is solved for them
For instance, if you receive two Sticky notes "coordinates move operation" from two different users from same 'client state', you need to make both states to converge, probably cancelling out second operation.
This is exactly the same behaviour with text when two users generate two updates to delete a text range that overlaps completely, (or maybe partially), the second update processed must be transformed against the previous and the resultant operation will only effectively delete a portion of the original one, (or completely cancelled with a 'no-op')
You can take a look on this nice explanation about how Google Wave Operational Transformation works and guess from this point how it should work your own implementation
See the following paper for an approach to using OT with trees if you want to go down that route:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.100.74
However, in your particular case, I would use a separate plain text OT document for each stickynote and use an existing library, eg: etherPad, to do the heavy lifting. The positions of the notes could then be broadcast on a last-committer-wins basis.
Operation Transformation is a general technique, it works for any data type. The point is you need to define your transformation functions. Also, there are some atomic attributes that you cannot merge automatically like (position and background color) those will be mostly "last-update wins" or the user solves them manually when there is a conflict.
there are some nice libs and frameworks that provide OT for complex data already out there:
ShareJS : library for Node which provides all operations on JSON objects
DerbyJS: framework for NodeJS, it uses ShareJS for OT stuff.
Open Coweb framework : Dojo foundation project for cooperative web applications using OT