Advertisement

The Key System: Integrating Object-Oriented Design and Formal Methods

  • Wolfgang Ahrendt
  • Thomas Baar
  • Bernhard Beckert
  • Martin Giese
  • Elmar Habermalz
  • Reiner Hähnle
  • Wolfram Menzel
  • Wojciech Mostowski
  • Peter H. Schmitt
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2306)

Abstract

This paper gives a brief description of the KeY system, a tool written as part of the ongoing KeY project1, which is aimed at bridging the gap between (a) OO software engineering methods and tools and (b) deductive verification. The KeY system consists of a commercial CASE tool enhanced with functionality for formal specification and deductive verification.

Keywords

Object Constraint Language Dynamic Logic Proof Obligation Symbolic Execution Case Tool 
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.

References

  1. [1]
    W. Ahrendt, T. Baar, B. Beckert, M. Giese, E. Habermalz, R. Hähnle, W. Menzel, and P. H. Schmitt. The KeY approach: Integrating object oriented design and formal verification. In M. Ojeda-Aciego, I. P. de Guzmán, G. Brewka, and L. M. Pereira, editors, Proc. 8th European Workshop on Logics in AI (JELIA), Malaga,Spain, volume 1919 of LNCS, pages 21–36. Springer-Verlag, Oct. 2000.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    T. Baar. Experiences with the UML/OCL-approach to precise software modeling: A report from practice. In Proc. Net. ObjectDays, Erfurt, Germany, 2000. http://i12www.ira.uka.de/~key/doc/2000/baar00.pdf.gz.
  3. [3]
    B. Beckert. A dynamic logic for the formal verification of Java Card programs. In I. Attali and T. Jensen, editors, Java on Smart Cards: Programming and Security. Revised Papers, Java Card 2000, International Workshop, Cannes, France, LNCS 2041, pages 6–24. Springer-Verlag, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    B. Beckert, U. Keller, and P. H. Schmitt. Translating the object constraint language into first-order predicate logic. Submitted to FASE 2002, available from http://i12www.ira.uka.de/~projekt/publicat.htm.
  5. [5]
    D. L. Dill and J. Rushby. Acceptance of formal methods: Lessons from hardware design. IEEE Computer, 29(4):23–24, Apr. 1996.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R. Hähnle and A. Ranta. Connecting OCL with the rest of the world. In J. Whittle, editor, Workshop on Transformations in UML at ETAPS, Genova, Italy, Apr. 2001.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Object Modeling Group. Unified Modelling Language Specification, v1.4, Sept. 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Ahrendt
    • 2
  • Thomas Baar
    • 1
  • Bernhard Beckert
    • 1
  • Martin Giese
    • 1
  • Elmar Habermalz
    • 1
  • Reiner Hähnle
    • 2
  • Wolfram Menzel
    • 1
  • Wojciech Mostowski
    • 2
  • Peter H. Schmitt
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität KarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Chalmers Universit of TechnologyGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations