{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024654463952185283, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008965259618976467, 'mean_word_length': 4.8599562363238515, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Towards a Dynamic Model for the UML

The current UML version 1.3 states that it ”defines a precise language” [17, p1-15] and that the four-layer metamodeling ”architecture is a proven infrastructure for defining the precise semantics required by complex models”[17, p2-4]. Besides the meta-model based specification parts the semantic is often described in English and thus ambiguous in general [13]. The contained object constraint language (OCL) [21, 10] has been recognized as suitable notation to improve the preciseness, but it also still lacks an official formal semantics [13]. The usage of multiple views has been identified as an adequate tool to handle complex modeling tasks. This ”separation of views principle” has to go hand in hand with a careful consideration of consistency issues. While disjunct views of the structural aspects can be related to each other in terms of the meta-metamodel the consistency of dynamic aspects is not considered. The usage of the meta-metamodel and OCL will as a mater of principle allow to define a precise static semantic, but the provided meta-metamodel [16] contains no basic ground for dynamic semantic issues. The attempted unification will only succeed when also a common understanding of the core UML is established. This may be refined for each domain using the profile concept [4], e.g., done for real-time modeling in [20], but it is of crucial importance that a profile based extension of the UML has to respect the common semantic of its core. The customers may develop an understanding for high level core UML models, but this common understanding is only helpful when each specific domain build its specialized policies based upon it. If the domain specific profile semantics are inconsistent with the UML core, the confusion will be disastrous and the situation will be inferior to the ”multi notation chaos” existing before. To achieve an UML core that can be refined several domain specific assumptions in the current version have to be relocated and placed in the respective profile. When considering the system dynamic a semantic basis for the UML core is of course a scientific challenge. In comparison with the amount of existing object-oriented design notations the number of proposed behavior models is even bigger and they are less similar. Each formalism provides its own characteristic advantages and is more or less convenient for a specific task. Thus, it seem impossible to face this problem without running into a dead end when choosing a specific formalism. We will discuss possible approaches towards a dynamic UML model and present a proposal which supports the application of several formalisms.