Integration of Formal Datatypes within State Diagrams

  • Christian Attiogbé
  • Pascal Poizat
  • Gwen Salaün
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2621)


In this paper, we present a generic approach to integrate datatypes expressed using formal specification languages within state diagrams. Our main motivations are (i) to be able to model dynamic aspects of complex systems with graphical user-friendly languages, and (ii) to be able to specify in a formal way and at a high abstraction level the datatypes pertaining to the static aspects of such systems. The dynamic aspects may be expressed using state diagrams (such as UML or SDL ones) and the static aspects may be expressed using either algebraic specifications or state oriented specifications (such as Z or B). Our approach introduces a flexible use of datatypes. It also may take into account different semantics for the state diagrams.


formal methods integration state diagrams algebraic specifications Z, B 


  1. 1.
    J.R. Abrial. The B-Book. Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Aiguier, F. Barbier, and P. Poizat. A Logic for Mixed Specifications. Technical Report 73-2002, LaMI, Germany, 2002. Presented atWADT’2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Allemand, C. Attiogbé, P. Poizat, J.-C. Royer, and G. Salaün. SHE’S Project: a Report of Joint Works on the Integration of Formal Specification Techniques. In Proc. of the Workshop on Integration of Specification Techniques with Applications in Engineering (INT’02), pages 29–36, France, 2002.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Astesiano, M. Bidoit, H. Kirchner, B. Krieg-Brückner, P.D. Mosses, D. Sannella, and A. Tarlecki. CASL: The Common Algebraic Specification Language. Theoretical Computer Science, 286(2):153–196, 2002.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Astesiano, M. Cerioli, and G. Reggio. Plugging Data Constructs into Paradigm-Specific Languages: Towards an Application to UML. In T. Rus, editor, Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology (AMAST’00), volume 1816 of LNCS, pages 273–292, USA, 2000. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Astesiano, H.-J. Kreowski, and B. Krieg-Brückner, editors. Algebraic Foundations of System Specification. Springer-Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Attiogbé, A. Francheteau, J. Limousin, and G. Salaün. ISA, a Tool for Integrated Specifications Animation. ISA/isa.html in Salaün’s webpage.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Attiogbé, P. Poizat, and G. Salaün. Integration of Formal Datatypes within State Diagrams. Technical Report 83-2002, University of Evry, October 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Attiogbé, P. Poizat, and G. Salaün. Specification of a Gas Station using a Formalism Integrating Formal Datatypes within State Diagrams. In Proc. of the 8th InternationalWorkshop on Formal Methods for Parallel Programming: Theory and Applications (FMPPTA’03), IEEE Computer Society Press, France, 2003. To appear.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Büssow and M. Weber. A Steam-Boiler Control Specification with Statecharts and Z. In J.-R. Abrial, E. Börger, and H. Langmaack, editors, Formal Methods for Industrial Applications: Specifying and Programming the Steam Boiler, volume 1165 of LNCS, pages 109–128. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Calder, S. Maharaj, and C. Shankland. AModal Logic for Full LOTOS Based on Symbolic Transition Systems. The Computer Journal, 45(1):55–61, 2002.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Choppy, P. Poizat, and J.-C. Royer. A Global Semantics for Views. In T. Rus, editor, Proc of the 8th International Conference on Algebraic Methodology And Software Technology (AMAST’00), volume 1816 of LNCS, pages 165–180, USA, 2000. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Crow, S. Owre, J. Rushby, N. Shankar, and M. Srivas. A Tutorial Introduction to PVS. In Proc. of theWorkshop on Industrial-Strength Formal Specification Techniques (WIFT’95), USA, 1995. Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Ellsberger, D. Hogrefe, and A. Sarma. SDL: Formal Object-oriented Language for Communicating Systems. Prentice-Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. J. Garland and J.V. Guttag. A Guide to LP, the Larch Prover. Technical Report, Palo Alto, California, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Große-Rhode. Integrating Semantics for Object-Oriented System Models. In F. Orejas, P.G. Spirakis, and J. van Leeuwen, editors, Proc. of the International Colloquium onAutomata, Languages and Programming (ICALP’01), volume 2076 of LNCS, pages 40–60. Springer-Verlag, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Harel and A. Naamad. The Statemate Semantics of Statecharts. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5(4):293–333, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Hennessy and H. Lin. Symbolic Bisimulations. Theoretical Computer Science, 138(2):353–389, 1995.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Jürjens. A UML Statecharts Semantics with Message-Passing. In Proc. of the 17th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’02), pages 1009–1013, Spain, 2002. ACM Inc.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Latella, I. Majzik, and M. Massink. Towards a Formal Operational Semantics of UML Statechart Diagrams. In P. Ciancarini and R. Gorrieri, editors, Proc. of the IFIP TC6/WG6.1 Third International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems (FMOODS’99), pages 331–347, Italy, 1999. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Lilius and I.P. Paltor. Formalising UML State Machines for Model Checking. In R. France and B. Rumpe, editors, Proc. of the International Conference on the Unified Modelling Language: Beyond the Standard (UML’99), volume 1723 of LNCS, pages 430–445, USA, 1999. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    G. Reggio and L. Repetto. Casl-Chart: A Combination of Statecharts and of the Algebraic Specification Language Casl. In T. Rus, editor, Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology (AMAST’00), volume 1816 of LNCS, pages 243–257, USA, 2000. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    E. Sekerinski and R. Zurob. Translating Statecharts to B. In M. Butler, L. Petre, and K. Sere, editors, Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods (IFM’02), volume 2335 of LNCS, pages 128–144, Finland, 2002. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. M. Spivey. The Z Notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science, 2nd edition, 1992.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. van der Beeck. Formalization of UML-Statecharts. In M. Gogolla and C. Kobryn, editors, Proc. of the 4th International Conference on the Unified Modelling Language (UML’01), volume 2185 of LNCS, pages 406–421, Canada, 2001. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Attiogbé
    • 1
  • Pascal Poizat
    • 2
  • Gwen Salaün
    • 1
  1. 1.IRINUniversité de NantesNantes Cedex 3France
  2. 2.LaMI - UMR 8042 CNRS et Université d’Evry Val d’Essonne, GenopoleÉvryFrance

Personalised recommendations