Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of formal specifications through transformation and animation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A significant impediment to the uptake of formal refinement-based methods among practitioners is the challenge of validating that the formal specifications of these methods capture the desired intents. Animation of specifications is widely recognized as an effective way of addressing such validation. However, animation tools are unable to directly execute (and thus animate) the typical uses of several of the specification constructs often found in ideal formal specifications. To address this problem, we have developed transformation heuristics that, starting with an ideal formal specification, guide its conversion into an animatable form. We show several of these heuristics and address the need to prove that the application of these transformations preserves the relevant behavior of the original specification. Portions of several case studies illustrate this approach.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.animb.org.

References

  1. Heitmeyer CL, Jeffords RD, Labaw BG (1996) Automated consistency checking of requirements specifications. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol (TOSEM) 5(3):231–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kaufmann M, Moore JS (1996) ACL2: an industrial strength version of Nqthm. In: Proceedings of the eleventh annual conference on computer assurance (COMPASS-96)

  3. Owre S, Rushby JM, Shankar N (jun 1992) PVS: a prototype verification system. In: Kapur D (ed) 11th international conference on automated deduction (CADE), ser. lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 607. Springer, Saratoga, pp 748–752

  4. Gordon MJC, Melham TF (1993) Introduction to HOL: a theorem-proving environment for higher-order logic. Cambridge University Press, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Paulson LC (1994) Isabelle: a generic theorem prover, ser. lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Beyer D, Henzinger TA, Jhala R, Majumdar R (2007) The software model checker BLAST: applications to software engineering. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf 9(5):505–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cimatti A, Clarke E, Giunchiglia E, Giunchiglia F, Pistore M, Roveri M, Sebastiani R, Tacchella A (2002) NuSMV 2: an open source tool for symbolic model checking. In: Brinksma E, Larsen K (eds) Computer aided verification, ser. lecture notes in computer science, vol 2404. Springer, Berlin, pp 359–364

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Hinton A, Kwiatkowska M, Norman G, Parker D (2006) PRISM: a tool for automatic verification of probabilistic systems. In: Hermanns H, Palsberg J (eds) Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems, ser. lecture notes in computer science, vol 3920. Springer, Berlin, pp 441–444

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Holzmann GJ (1997) The model checker SPIN. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 23(5):279–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Butler R, Caldwell J, Carreno V, Holloway C, Miner PS, Di Vito B (1995) NASA Langley’s research and technology-transfer program in formal methods. In: Computer assurance, 1995. COMPASS ’95. Systems integrity, software safety and process security. Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on June 1995, pp 135–149

  11. Kaufmann M, Moore J (1997) An industrial strength theorem prover for a logic based on Common Lisp. Softw Eng IEEE Trans 23(4):203–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cimatti A (2001) Industrial applications of model checking. In: Cassez F, Jard C, Rozoy B, Ryan M (eds) Modeling and verification of parallel processes, ser. lecture notes in computer science, vol 2067. Springer, Berlin, pp 153–168. doi: 10.1007/3-540-45510-8_6

  13. Bormann J, Lohse J, Payer M, Venzl G (1995) Model checking in industrial hardware design. In: Proceedings of the 32Nd annual ACM/IEEE design automation conference, ser. DAC ’95. ACM, New York, pp 298–303. doi: 10.1145/217474.217545

  14. Spivey JM (1988) Understanding Z: a specification language and its formal semantics. Cambridge University Press, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Abrial J-R (1996) The B book. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Abrial J-R (2010) Modeling in event-B: system and software engineering. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Farahbod R, Gervasi V, Glässer U (2007) CoreASM: an extensible ASM execution engine. Fundam Inf 77(1–2):71–103

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Gargantini A, Riccobene E, Scandurra P (2008) Model-driven language engineering: the asmeta case study. In: Software engineering advances, 2008. ICSEA ’08. The third international conference on, pp 373–378

  19. Fitzgerald J, Larsen PG, Sahara S (2008) VDMTools: advances in support for formal modeling in VDM. ACM SIGPLAN Not 43(2):3–11. doi:10.1145/1361213.1361214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Leuschel M, Butler M (2008) ProB: an automated analysis toolset for the B method. J Softw Tools Technol Transf 10(2):185–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jackson D (2006) Software abstractions: logic, language, and analysis. The MIT Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mashkoor A, Jacquot J-P, Souquières J (2009) Transformation heuristics for formal requirements validation by animation. In: 2nd international workshop on the certification of safety-critical software controlled systems (SafeCert’09). York

  23. Mashkoor A, Jacquot J-P (2011) Stepwise validation of formal specifications. In: 18th Asia-Pacific software engineering conference (APSEC’11). Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  24. Mashkoor A, Jacquot J-P (2011) Utilizing Event-B for domain engineering: a critical analysis. Requir Eng 16(3):191–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mashkoor A, Jacquot J-P (2015) Observation-level-driven formal modeling. In: High-assurance systems engineering (HASE), 2015 IEEE 16th international symposium, pp 158–165

  26. Meyer B (1985) On formalism in specifications. Softw IEEE 2(1):6–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mashkoor A, Jacquot J-P (2011) Guidelines for formal domain modeling in Event-B. In: High-assurance systems engineering (HASE), 2011 IEEE 13th international symposium, pp 138–145

  28. Cousot P, Cousot R (1977) Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: POPL ’77: proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on principles of programming languages. ACM, New York, pp 238–252

  29. Servat T (2006) BRAMA: a new graphic animation tool for B models. In: B 2007: Formal specification and development in B. Springer, pp 274–276

  30. Mashkoor A (2011) Formal domain engineering: from specification to validation. Ph.D. dissertation, Université de Lorraine. http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00614269/en/

  31. Abrial J-R, Butler M, Hallerstede S, Hoang T, Mehta F, Voisin L (2010) Rodin: an open toolset for modelling and reasoning in Event-B. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transf 12(6):447–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mashkoor A, Jacquot J-P, Souquières J (2009) B Evénementiel pour la Modélisation du Domaine: application au transport. In: Approches formelles dans l’Assistance au Développement de Logiciels (AFADL’09). France, Toulouse, pp 1–19

  33. Mashkoor A, Jacquot J-P (2010) Domain engineering with Event-B: some lessons we learned. In: Requirements engineering conference (RE), 2010 18th IEEE international, pp 252–261

  34. Boniol F, Wiels V (2014) The landing gear system case study. In: Schewe K-D, Boniol F, Wiels V, Ait Ameur Y (eds) ABZ 2014: the landing gear case study, vol 433. Springer, New York, pp 1–18. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07512-9_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Lanoix A (2008) Event-B specification of a situated multi-agent system: study of a platoon of vehicles. In: 2nd international symposium on theoretical aspects of software engineering (TASE’08). Nanjing

  36. Daviet P, Parent M (1996) Longitudinal and lateral servoing of vehicles in a platoon. In: Proceedings of the IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium, pp 41–46

  37. Scheuer A, Simonin O, Charpillet F (2008) Safe longitudinal platoons of vehicles without communication. INRIA, research report RR-6741. http://hal.inria.fr/inria-00342719/en/

  38. Colin S, Lanoix A, Kouchnarenko O, Souquières J (2008) Towards validating a platoon of cristal vehicles using CSP||B. In: Meseguer J, Rosu G (eds) 12th International Conference on Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology (AMAST 2008), ser. LNCS, vol 5140. Springer, pp 139–144

  39. Colin S, Lanoix A, Kouchnarenko O, Souquières J (2008) Using CSP||B components: application to a platoon of vehicles. In: 13th International ERCIM Wokshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems (FMICS 2008), ser. LNCS. Springer

  40. Breuer P, Bowen J (1994) Towards correct executable semantics for Z. In: Bowen J, Hall J (eds) Z User Workshop, Cambridge 1994, ser. Workshops in computing. Springer, London, pp 185–209

  41. Utting M (1995) Animating Z: interactivity, transparency and equivalence. In: Software engineering conference, 1995. Proceedings, 1995 Asia Pacific, pp 294–303

  42. Clemons E, Greenfield A (1985) The sage system architecture: a system for the rapid development of graphics interfaces for decision support. IEEE Comput Gr Appl 5:38–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Roman G-C, Cox KC (1989) A declarative approach to visualizing concurrent computations. Computer 22(10):25–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hayes I, Jones C (1989) Specifications are not (necessarily) executable. Softw Eng J 4:330–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Fuchs NE (1992) Specifications are (preferably) executable. Softw Eng J 7:323–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Partsch HA (1990) Specification and transformation of programs: a formal approach to software development. Springer, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Yang F, Jacquot J-P, Souquières J (2012) The case for using simulation to validate Event-B specifications. In: Proceedings of the 2012 19th Asia-Pacific software engineering conference-Volume 01, ser. APSEC’12. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 85–90

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Software Competence Center Hagenberg GmbH, Hagenberg, Austria

    Atif Mashkoor

  2. LORIA – Université de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre lès Nancy, France

    Jean-Pierre Jacquot

Authors
  1. Atif Mashkoor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-Pierre Jacquot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Atif Mashkoor.

Additional information

The writing of this article is partly supported by the Austrian Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology, the Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy, and the Province of Upper Austria in the frame of the COMET center SCCH.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mashkoor, A., Jacquot, JP. Validation of formal specifications through transformation and animation. Requirements Eng 22, 433–451 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-016-0246-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-016-0246-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation