Skip to main content

Dual-Language Approaches

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 1193 Accesses

Abstract

A “dual-language approach” is one in which two formalisms, an operational and a descriptive one, co-exist to describe different aspects of the problem at hand. In the most typical setting, an operational language describes the system under design, whereas a descriptive (usually logic) language formalizes the desired system properties. Then, suitable methods are used to establish that the modeled system satisfies the stated properties.In this chapter, we present the essentials of dual-language approaches within the field of timing analysis. First, we describe the principles underlying model checking, in which properties expressed in temporal logic are verified for systems modeled as transition systems. Then, we present the TTM/RTTL approach, which relies upon Timed Transition Models to represent the system, and on formulae of the companion Real Time Temporal Logic to formalize the properties of interest. Finally, we discuss an approach combining timed Petri nets as operational notation and the TRIO logic language. The chapter concludes with a brief review of the tools supporting dual-language approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is a notational convenience that is common when depicting automata corresponding to LTL formulae; the automaton in Fig. 11.1 uses the more common convention of indicating on the transitions all and only the events that hold.

  2. 2.

    Recall that guards are combinations of clock constraints, where a clock constraint has the form x ∼ c, with x a clock, c a natural number, and \(\sim \in \{<,\leq , =,\geq ,>\}\).

  3. 3.

    Place P is not an argument of \(\mathsf{tokenF}\) because hypothesis J1 guarantees that i and o uniquely determine P.

References

  1. Alur, R., Dill, D.L.: A theory of timed automata. Theor. Comput. Sci. 126(2), 183–235 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baier, C., Haverkort, B., Hermanns, H., Katoen, J.P.: Model-checking algorithms for continuous-time Markov chains. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 29(6), 524–541 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baier, C., Katoen, J.P.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT, Cambridge (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems, TACAS ’99, pp. 193–207. Springer, London (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Biere, A., Heljanko, K., Junttila, T.A., Latvala, T., Schuppan, V.: Linear encodings of bounded LTL model checking. Log. Method Comput. Sci. 2(5) (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Giunchiglia, E., Giunchiglia, F., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Sebastiani, R., Tacchella, A.: NuSMV 2: An opensource tool for symbolic model checking. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, CAV ’02, pp. 359–364. Springer, London (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching-time temporal logic. In: Logic of Programs, Workshop, pp. 52–71. Springer, London (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P.: Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 8(2), 244–263 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT, Cambridge (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dijkstra, E.W.: Guarded commands, nondeterminacy and formal derivation of programs. Commun. ACM 18(8), 453–457 (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dijkstra, E.W.: A Discipline of Programming. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Felder, M., Mandrioli, D., Morzenti, A.: Proving properties of real-time systems through logical specifications and Petri net models. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20(2), 127–141 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Floyd, R.W.: Assigning meanings to programs. In: Schwartz, J.T. (ed.) Mathematical Aspects of Computer Science, Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics, vol. 19, pp. 19–32. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM 12(10), 576–580 (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Holzmann, G.J.: The SPIN Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D., Sproston, J.: Verification of real-time probabilistic systems. In: S. Merz, N. Navet (eds.) Modeling and Verification of Real-Time Systems: Formalisms and Software Tools, pp. 249–288. Wiley, London (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ostroff, J.S.: Temporal Logic for Real Time Sytems. Advanced Software Development Series. Wiley, New York (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ostroff, J.S.: A visual toolset for the design of real-time discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 5(3), 320–337 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ostroff, J.S.: Composition and refinement of discrete real-time systems. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 8(1), 1–48 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pnueli, A.: Specification and development of reactive systems (invited paper). In: IFIP Congress, pp. 845–858. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pradella, M., Morzenti, A., San Pietro, P.: A metric encoding for bounded model checking. In: A. Cavalcanti, D. Dams (eds.) FM 2009: Formal Methods, Second World Congress, Eindhoven, 2–6 November, 2009. Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 741–756. Springer, Berlin (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Queille, J.P., Sifakis, J.: Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. In: Symposium on Programming, pp. 337–351. Springer, Berlin (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  23. The \(\mathbb{Z}\)ot bounded model/satisfiability checker. http://zot.googlecode.com

  24. The MRMC model checker. http://www.mrmc-tool.org/

  25. The NuSMV model checker. http://nusmv.fbk.eu/

  26. The PRISM model checker. http://www.prismmodelchecker.org/

  27. The SPIN model checker. http://spinroot.com

  28. The UPPAAL model checker. http://www.uppaal.org

  29. Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: An automata-theoretic approach to automatic program verification (preliminary report). In: Proceedings, Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, 16–18 June 1986, Cambridge, pp. 332–344. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (1986)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Furia, C.A., Mandrioli, D., Morzenti, A., Rossi, M. (2012). Dual-Language Approaches. In: Modeling Time in Computing. Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32332-4_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32332-4_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-32331-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-32332-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics