Encoding a process algebra using the Event B method

Application to the validation of human–computer interactions
  • Yamine Ait-Ameur
  • Mickael Baron
  • Nadjet Kamel
  • Jean-Marc Mota
Regular Paper

Abstract

This paper presents the use of the B technique in its event based definition. We show that it is possible to encode, using Event B, the models (i.e., transition systems) associated to a process algebra with asynchronous semantics. The obtained Event B models consider that the Event B model associated to the left hand side of a BNF rule defining the algebra expressions is refined by a model corresponding to the right hand side of the same rule. The translation rules of each operator of a basic process algebra are given. Then, an example illustrating each translation rule is given. This approach is based on a proof technique and therefore it does not suffer from the state number explosion problem occurring in classical model checking. The interest of this work is the capability to validate user tasks or scenarios when using a given system and particularly a critical system. Finally, we discuss the application of this approach for validating user interfaces tasks in the human–computer interaction area.

Keywords

Event B method Refinements Process algebra Human–computer interaction User tasks validation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.-R.: Extending B without changing it (for Developing Distributed Systems). In: Habrias, H. (ed.) First B Conference, Putting Into Pratice Methods and Tools for Information System Design, Nantes, France, p. 21 (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrial J.-R.: The B Book. Assigning Programs to Meanings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aït-Ameur, Y., Aït-Sadoune, I., Baron, M., Mota, J.-M.: Validation et vérification formelles de systèmes interactifs multi-modaux fondées sur la preuve. In: IHM 2006, pp. 123–131. Montréal, Canada (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aït-Ameur Y., Baron M.: Formal and experimental validation approaches in HCI systems design based on a shared event B model. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer 8(6), 547–563 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aït-Ameur Y., Baron M., Girard P.: Formal validation of HCI user tasks. In: Al-Ani, B., Arabnia, H.R., Youngsong, M. (eds) The 2003 International Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice—SERP 2003, vol. 2, pp. 732–738. CSREA Press, Las Vegas, Nevada USA (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aït-Ameur Y., Girard P., Jambon F.: Using the B Formal Approach for Incremental Specification Design of Interactive Systems. In: Chatty, S., Dewan, P. (eds) IFIP TC2/WG2.7 Engineering for Human–Computer Interaction, pp. 91–110. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aït-Ameur Y., Kamel N.: A generic formal specification of fusion of modalities in a multimodal HCI. In: Jacquart, R. (eds) IFIP World Computer Science, Toulouse, France, pp. 415–420. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aït-Ameur Y., Aït-Sadoune I., Baron M., Mota J.-M.: Etude et comparaison de scénarios de développements formels d’interfaces multi-modales fondés sur la preuve et le raffinement. RSTI- Ingénierie des Systèmes d’Informations 13(2), 127–155 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bass, L., Hardy, E., Hoyt, K., Little, R., Seacord, R.: The Arch model: Seeheim revisited, the serpent run time architecture and dialog model. Technical Report CMU/SEI-88-TR-6, Carnegie Melon University (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bass, L., Pellegrino, R., Reed, S., Sheppard, S., Szezur, M.: The Arch model: Seeheim revisited. In: User Interface Developper’s Workshop (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bjorner, D.: VDM a Formal Method at Work. In: Proceedings of VDM Europe Symposium’87. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bouchet, J., Nigay, L., Ganille, T.: ICARE software components for rapidly developing multimodal interfaces. In: Proceedings of ACM-CHI 2004, Extended Abstracts, Vienna, Austria, pp. 1325–1328 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bouchet, J., Nigay, L., Ganille, T.: The ICARE component-based approach for multimodal input interaction: application to real-time military aircraft cockpits. In: Proceedings of the Thirrd International Conference on Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction HCI International, Las Vegas, USA, ACM Press jul (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brun P.: XTL: a Temporal Logic for the Formal Development of Interactive Systems. In: Palanque, P., Paterno, F. (eds) Formal Methods for Human–Computer Interaction, pp. 121–139. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bumbulis P., Alencar P.S.C., Cowan D.D., Lucena C.J.P.: Combining Formal Techniques and Prototyping in User Interface Construction and Verification. In: Palanque, P., Bastide, R. (eds) Second Workshop on Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems DSVIS, pp. 174–192. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bumbulis, P., Alencar, P.S.C., Cowan, D.D., Lucena, C.J.P.: Validating Properties of Component-Based Graphical User Interfaces. In: Eurographics Workshop on Design, Specification, and Verification of Interactive Systems (DSV-IS’96), pp. 347–365. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Campos J.C., Harrison M.D.: Model checking interactor specifications. Autom. Softw. Eng. 8(3–4), 275–310 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Campos, J.C., Harrison, M.D., Loer, K.: Verifying user interface behaviour with model checking. In: Augusto, J.C., Ultes-Nitsche, U. (eds.) Verification and Validation of Enterprise Information Systems (VVEIS 2004), Porto, Portugal, pp. 87–96. INSTICC Press, Setúbal. ISBN: 972-8865-03-1 April 2004Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Campos, J.C., Harrison, M.D.: Formally verifying interactive systems: a review. In: Eurographics Workshop on Design, Specification, and Verification of Interactive Systems (DSV-IS’97), pp. 109–124. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cansell, D.: Assistance au développement incrémental et à sa preuve. Habilitation à diriger les recherches, Université Henri Poincaré (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ClearSy. Atelier B—version 3.5 (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Coutaz, J.: PAC, an Implementation Model for the User Interface. In IFIP TC13 Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT’87), pp. 431–436. North-Holland, Stuttgart (1987)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coutaz, J., Nigay, L., Salber, D., Blandford, A., May, J., Young, R.M.: Four easy pieces for assessing the usability of multimodal interaction: the CARE properties. In: Proceedings of Human Computer Interaction—Interact’95, pp. 115–120. Chapman & Hall, London (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D’Ausbourg, B.: Using Model Checking for the Automatic Validation of User Interface Systems. In: Eurographics Workshop on Design, Specification, and Verification of Interactive Systems (DSV-IS’98), pp. 242–260. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dijkstra E.W.: In A Discipline of Programming. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1976)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dijkstra E.W.: A discipline of programming. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1976)MATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Duke, D., Harrison, M.D.: Abstract Interaction Objects. In: Proceedings of Eurographics Conference and Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 12, pp. 25–36 (1993)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Duke, D.J., Harrison, M.D.: Towards a Theory of Interactors. Technical report, Amodeus Esprit Basic Research Project 7040, System Modelling/WP6 (1993)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fekete, J.-D.: Un modèle multicouche pour la construction d’applications graphiques interactives. Doctorat d’université (PhD Thesis), Université Paris-Sud (1996)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gray, P., England, D., McGowan, S.: XUAN: Enhancing the uan to capture temporal relation among actions. Department research report IS-94-02, Department of Computing Science, University of Glasgow, February (1994)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Guittet, L.: Contribution à l’Ingénierie des Interfaces Homme-Machine—Théorie des Interacteurs et Architecture H4 dans le système NODAOO. Doctorat d’université (PhD Thesis), Université de Poitiers (1995)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hoare C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. CACM 12(10), 576–583 (1969)MATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hussey, A., Carrington, D.: Specifying a Web Browser Interface Using Object-Z. In: Formal Methods for Human–Computer Interaction, pp. 157–174. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kamel, N.: Utilisation de SMV pour la vérification de propriétés d’IHM multimodales. In: 16ème Conférence Francophone sur l’Interaction Homme-Machine (IHM’2004), Namur, Belgique, vol. 1, pp. 219–222. ACM Press, London (2004)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kamel N., Ait-Ameur Y.: Mise en œuvre d’IHM Multimodales dans un système de CAO. Une approche fondée sur les méthodes formelles. Rev. Int. d’ingénierie numérique 1(2), 235–256 (2005)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nigay, L.: Conception et Modélisation Logicielle des Systèmes Interactifs : Application aux Interfaces Multimodales. Doctorat d’université (PhD Thesis), Université Joseph Fourier (1994)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Palanque, P., Bastide, R., Sengs, V.: Validating Interactive System Design Through the Verification of Formal Task and System Models. In: IFIP TC2/WG2.7 Engineering for Human–Computer Interaction, pp. 189–212 (1995)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Paternò F.: Model-Based Design and Evaluation of Interactive Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Paterno, F., Faconti, G.: On the LOTOS Use to Describe Graphical Interaction. In: Proceedings of HCI, People and Computer, pp. 155–173. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Paternò, F., Mori, G., Galimberti, R.: CTTE: An Environment for Analysis and Development of Task Models of Cooperative Applications. In: ACM CHI 2001, vol. 2, Seattle, ACM/SIGCHI (2001)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pfaff, G.E. (ed.): User Interface Management Systems, Proceedings of theWorkshop on User Interface Management Systems held in Seeheim. Eurographic Seminars. Springer, Berlin (1985)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Scapin, D.L., Pierret-Golbreich, C.: Towards a Method for Task Description: MAD. In: Work with Display Units. Elsevier, North-Holland (1990)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Spivey J.M.: The Z notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1988)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yamine Ait-Ameur
    • 1
  • Mickael Baron
    • 1
  • Nadjet Kamel
    • 2
  • Jean-Marc Mota
    • 1
  1. 1.LISI, ENSMA, University of PoitiersFuturoscope CedexFrance
  2. 2.University of MonctonShippaganCanada

Personalised recommendations