Proving Event Ordering Properties for Information Systems
This paper presents an approach to prove event ordering properties for B specifications of information systems. The properties are expressed using the EB 3 notation, where input event ordering properties are defined using a process algebra similar to CSP and output events are specified by recursive functions on the input traces associated to the process expression. By proving that the EB 3 specification is refined by the B specification, using the B theory of refinement, we ensure that both specifications accept and refuse exactly the same event traces. The proof relies on an extended labeled transition system, generated using the operational semantics of the process algebra, in order to deal with unbounded systems. The gluing invariant is generated from the EB 3 recursive functions.
KeywordsEB3 B process algebra trace-based specifications refinement
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Abrial, J.-R., Mussat, L.: Introducing Dynamic Constraints in B. In Second International B Conference, D. Bert, ed., LNCS 1393, Springer-Verlag, 83–128, April 1998.Google Scholar
- 4.Butler, M. J., Waldén, M.: Distributed System Development in B. In First B Conference, H. Habrias, ed., November 1996.Google Scholar
- 6.Fischer, C.: CSP-OZ: A combination of Object-Z and CSP. In Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems (FMOODS’97), volume 2, 423–438, Chapman & Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
- 7.Frappier, M., St-Denis, R.: Combining JSD and Cleanroom for Object-Oriented Scenario Specification. In Object-Oriented Behavioral Specifications, H. Kilov, B. Rumpe, I. Simmonds, eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.Google Scholar
- 8.Frappier, M., St-Denis, R.: Specifying Information Systems through Structured Input-Output Traces, Technical Report, Département de mathématiques et d’informatique, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke (Québec), Canada J1K 2R1, 2002.Google Scholar
- 10.Laleau, R. Mammar, A.: An Overview of a Method and its Support Tool for Generating B Specifications from UML Notations. In ASE: 15th IEEE Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Grenoble, France, IEEE Computer Society Press, September 2000.Google Scholar
- 11.Meyer, E., Souquières, J.: A Systematic approach to Transform OMT Diagrams to a B specification. In Formal Methods (FM’99), J.M. Wing, J. Woodcook, J. Davies, eds., LNCS 1708 vol. 1, Springer-Verlag, 875–895, September 1999.Google Scholar
- 13.Sekerinski, E., Zurob, R.: Translating Statecharts to B, In 3rd International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods (IFM’02), M. Butler, L. Petre, K. Sere, eds, LNCS 2335, Springer-Verlag, 128–144, Turku, Finland, May 2002.Google Scholar
- 14.Butler, M., and Snook, C.: Verifying Dynamic Properties of UML Models by Translation to the B Language and Toolkit. In UML 2000 Workshop, Dynamic Behaviour in UML Models: Semantic Questions. York, UK, 2–6 October, 2000.Google Scholar
- 15.Snook, C., Walden, M.: Use of U2B for Specifying B Action Systems. In International workshop on Refinement of Critical Systems: Methods, Tools and Experience (RCS’02), Grenoble, France, January 2002.Google Scholar