Acta Informatica

, Volume 52, Issue 4–5, pp 305–336 | Cite as

Richer interface automata with optimistic and pessimistic compatibility

  • Gerald Lüttgen
  • Walter Vogler
  • Sascha Fendrich
Original Article


Modal transition systems are a popular semantic underpinning of interface theories, such as Nyman et al.’s IOMTS and Bauer et al.’s MIO, which facilitate component-based reasoning for concurrent systems. Our interface theory MIA repaired a compositional flaw of IOMTS-refinement and introduced a conjunction operator. In this paper, we first modify MIA to properly deal with internal computations including internal must-transitions, which were largely ignored already in IOMTS. We then study a MIA variant that adopts MIO’s pessimistic—rather than IOMTS’ optimistic—view on component compatibility and define, for the first-time in a pessimistic, non-deterministic setting, conjunction and disjunction on interfaces. For both the optimistic and pessimistic MIA variant, we also discuss mechanisms for extending alphabets when refining interfaces, which is a desired feature for perspective-based specification. We illustrate our advancements via a small example.


  1. 1.
    Bauer, S.: Modal Specification Theories for Component-based Design. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Mathematics, Informatics and Statistics, LMU Munich, Germany (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer, S., David, A., Hennicker, R., Larsen, K., Legay, A., Nyman, U., Wasowski, A.: Moving from specifications to contracts in component-based design. In: FASE, LNCS, vol. 7212, pp. 43–58. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauer, S., Mayer, P., Schroeder, A., Hennicker, R.: On weak modal compatibility, refinement, and the MIO Workbench. In: TACAS, LNCS, vol. 6015, pp. 175–189. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beneš, N., Cerná, I., Křetínský, J.: Modal transition systems: composition and LTL model checking. In: Bultan, T., Hsiung, P.A. (eds.) ATVA, LNCS, vol. 6996, pp. 228–242. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beyer, D., Chakrabarti, A., Henzinger, T., Seshia, S.: An application of web-service interfaces. In: ICWS, pp. 831–838. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bujtor, F., Fendrich, S., Lüttgen, G., Vogler, W.: Nondeterministic modal interfaces. In: Software Seminar (SOFSEM) (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bujtor, F., Vogler, W.: Failure semantics for modal transition systems. In: Application of Concurrency to Systems Design (ACSD) (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, T., Chilton, C., Jonsson, B., Kwiatkowska, M.: A compositional specification theory for component behaviours. In: ESOP, LNCS, vol. 7211, pp. 148–168. Springer, Berlin (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chilton, C.: An Algebraic Theory of Componentised Interaction. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, UK (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.: Interface-based design. In: Engineering Theories of Software-Intensive Systems, NATO Science Series, vol. 195. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fahrenberg, U., Jan Křetínský, A.L., Traonouez, L.M.: Compositionality for quantitative specifications. In: Formal Aspects of Component Software, LNCS. Springer, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fischbein, D., Uchitel, S.: On correct and complete strong merging of partial behaviour models. In: Foundations of Software Engineering (SIGSOFT FSE), pp. 297–307 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hatcliff, J., Leavens, G.T., Leino, K.R.M., Müller, P., Parkinson, M.: Behavioral interface specification languages. ACM Comput. Surv. 44(3), 16:1–16:58 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Larsen, K.: Modal specifications. In: Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems, LNCS, vol. 407, pp. 232–246. Springer, Berlin (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larsen, K., Nyman, U., Wasowski, A.: Modal I/O automata for interface and product line theories. In: ESOP, LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 64–79. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lüttgen, G., Vogler, W.: Modal interface automata. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 9(3:4) (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meyer, B.: Applying design by contract. IEEE Comput. 25(10), 40–51 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Raclet, J., Badouel, E., Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Legay, A., Passerone, R.: A modal interface theory for component-based design. Fund. Inform. 107, 1–32 (2011)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raclet, J.B.: Residual for component specifications. ENTCS 215, 93–110 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schäfer, M., Vogler, W.: Component refinement and CSC-solving for STG decomposition. Theor. Comput. Sci. 388(1–3), 243–266 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerald Lüttgen
    • 1
  • Walter Vogler
    • 2
  • Sascha Fendrich
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Technologies Research GroupUniversity of BambergBambergGermany
  2. 2.Institut für InformatikUniversity of AugsburgAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations