Formal Methods in System Design

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 259–293 | Cite as

Merging behavior specifications

  • Ferhat Khendek
  • Gregor V. Bochmann


This paper describes a method for merging behavior specifications modeled by transition systems. Given two behavior specificationsB1 andB2, Merge (B1,B2) defines a new behavior specification that extendsB1 andB2. Moreover, provided that a necessary and sufficient condition holds, Merge(B1,B2) is a cyclic extension ofB1 andB2. In other words, Merge (B1,B2) extendsB1 andB2, and any cyclic trace inB1 orB2 remains a cyclic in Merge(B1,B2). Therefore, in the case of cyclic traces ofB1 orB2, Merge(B1,B2) transforms into Merge(B1,B2), and may exhibit, in a recursive manner, behaviors ofB1 andB2. If Merge(B1,B2) is a cyclic extension ofB1 andB2, then Merge(B1,B2) represents the least common cyclic extension ofB1 andB2. This approach is useful for the extension and integration of system specifications.


Operating System Transition System Behavior Specification System Specification Cyclic Extension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    E. Brinksma, G. Scollo, and S. Steenbergen, “LOTOS Specifications, Their Implementations and Their Tests,”Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification, Sarikaya and Bochmann (eds.), Montréal, Canada, June 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S.D. Brookes and A.W. Roscoe, “An Improved Failure Model for Communicating Sequential Processes,”Proceedings of the NSF-SERC Seminar on Concurrency, Springer-Verlag LNCS 197, 1985.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. De Nicola,and M. Hennessy, “Testing equivalences for processes,”Theo. Comp. Sci., 34:83–133, 1984.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. De Nicola, “Extensional Equivalences for Transition Systems,”Acta Informatica, 24:211–237, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Cleaveland and M. Hennessy, “Testing Equivalence as Bisimulation Equivalence,”Formal Aspects of Computing, 5:1–20, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Drira, “Tranformation et composition de graphes de refus: analyse de la testabilité,” Doctorat Thesis, Université de Toulouse, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Hennessy, “Acceptances Trees,”J. of ACM, Vol. 32, No. 4:896–928, Oct. 1985.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M Hennessy,Algebraic Theory for Processes, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.E. Hopcroft and J.D. Ullman,Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation, Addison-Wesley, p. 418, 1979.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Ichikawa, K. Yamanaka, and J. Kato, “Incremental Specification in LOTOS,”Symposium on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification X (1990), Ottawa, Canada, Logrippo, Probert and Ural (eds.).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO—Information Processing Systems—Open Systems Interconnection, LOTOS—A Formal Description Technique Based on the Temporal Ordering of Observational Behaviour, DIS 8807, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Khendek and G.v. Bochmann, “Incremental Construction Approach for Distributed System Specifications,”Proceedings of the Int. Symp. on Formal Description Techniques, Boston, Mas., 26–29 Oct., 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Leduc, “On the role of Implementation Relations in the Design of Distributed systems using LOTOS,” Doctoral Dissertation, Liège, Belgium.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Keller, “Formal verification of parallel programs,”Comm. of the ACM 19, pp. 371–384, July 1976.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    H.A. Lin, “Constructing Protocols with Alternative Functions,”IEEE Transactions on Computer, Vol. 40, No. 4, April 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Mayr,Specification of object-oriented systems in LOTOS, FORTE, Stirling, 1988.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Milner,Communication and Concurrency, Prentice-Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Park, “Concurrency and Automata in Infinite Strings,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science 104, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1981, pp. 67–183.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Rudkin,Inheritance in LOTOS, Formal description technique—FORTE, Sydney, Australia, 1991, pp. 415–430.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ferhat Khendek
    • 1
  • Gregor V. Bochmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Département d'informatique et de recherche opérationnelleUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations