Compositional Verification for Object-Z

  • Kirsten Winter
  • Graeme Smith
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2651)


This paper presents a framework for compositional verification of Object-Z specifications. Its key feature is a proof rule based on decomposition of hierarchical Object-Z models. For each component in the hierarchy local properties are proven in a single proof step. However, we do not consider components in isolation. Instead, components are envisaged in the context of the referencing super-component and proof steps involve assumptions on properties of the sub-components. The framework is defined for Linear Temporal Logic (LTL).


Model Check Linear Temporal Logic Kripke Structure Proof Rule Proof Step 
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. [Eme90]
    E. A. Emerson. Temporal and modal logic. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Coomputer Science, volume B. Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. [GL94]
    O. Grumberg and D.E. Long. Model checking and modular verification. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(3):843–871, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [Gri97]
    A. Griffiths. Modular reasoning in Object-Z. In W. Wong and K. Leung, editors, Proc. of the Joint 1997 Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference and International Computer Science Conference, IEEE, pages 140–149. Computer Society Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. [Pnu85]
    A. Pnueli. In transition from global to modular temporal reasoning about programs. In K. R. Apt, editor, Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, volume 13 of NATO ASI Series, pages 123–144. Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  5. [SKS02]
    G. Smith, F. Kammüller, and T. Santen. Encoding Object-Z in Isabelle/HOL. In D. Bert, J.P. Bowen, M.C. Henson, and K. Robinson, editors, Proc. of Int. Conf. of Z and B Users (ZB 2002), volume 2272 of LNCS, pages 82–99. Springer-Verlag, 2002.Google Scholar
  6. [Smi92]
    G. Smith. An Object-Oriented Approach to Formal Specification. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Queensland, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. [Smi95a]
    G. Smith. A fully abstract semantics of classes for Object-Z. Formal Aspects of Computing, 7(3):289–313, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [Smi95b]
    G. Smith. Reasoning about Object-Z specifications. In Proc. of the Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC95), IEEE, pages 489–497. Computer Society Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. [Smi00]
    G. Smith. The Object-Z Specification Language. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. [Smi02]
    G. Smith. Introducing reference semantics via refinement. In C. George and H. Miao, editors, Proc. on Int. Conference on Formal Engineering Methods (ICFEM 2002), volume 2495 of LNCS, pages 588–599. Springer-Verlag, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. [Spi92]
    J.M. Spivey. The Z Notation — A Reference Manual. Prentice Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. [SW03]
    G. Smith and K. Winter. Proving temporal properties of Z specificatons using abstraction. In 3rd International Conference of Z and B USers (ZB 2003), LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 2003. This volume.Google Scholar
  13. [WB92]
    J.C.P. Woodcock and S.M. Brien. \( \mathcal{W} \) : A logic for Z. In Z User Workshop (ZUM’92), Workshops in Computing, pages 77–98. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirsten Winter
    • 1
  • Graeme Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Verification Research CentreUniversity of QueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations