Advertisement

The Design of a Tool-Supported Graphical Notation for Timed CSP

  • Phillip J. Brooke
  • Richard F. Paige
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2335)

Abstract

A graphical notation for representing Timed CSP (TCSP) specifications is presented. The notation, which integrates features from a number of existing specification languages, including Statecharts, is aimed at providing the means for more easily constructing and managing large TCSP specifications, with the intention of forming the basis for tools and a methodology for applying TCSP in the large. The graphical notation extends TCSP by allowing specifications to be both processes and arbitrary predicates, thus increasing the expressiveness and applicability of the notation. An extendible tool framework, designed for the graphical notation and to be integrated with other tools, is outlined. We discuss the features of this framework, especially how it aims to support reasoning about TCSP specifications.

Keywords

Timed CSP process algebra graphical notation tool support 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    L. Baresi and M. Pezzè. Towards Formalizing Structured Analysis. ACM Trans. Software Engineering and Methodology 7(1), January 1998.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    T. Bolognesi, E. Najm, and P. Tilanus. G-LOTOS: a graphical language for concurrent systems. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 26(9):1101–1127, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    G. Booch, J. Rumbaugh, and I. Jacobson. The UML User Guide. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. Brooke. A Timed Semantics for A Hierarchical Design Notation. DPhil thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of York; also issued as YCST 99/08.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    P. Brooke, J. Jacob, and J. Armstrong. An analysis of the four-slot mechanism. In Proceedings of the BCS-FACS Northern Formal Methods Workshop, electronic Workshops in Computing. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    S. Brodsky, T. Clark, S. Cook, A. Evans, and S. Kent. Feasibility Study in Rearchitecting the UML as a Family of Languages using a Precise Meta-Modeling Approach. Technical Report of pUML Group, September 2000. Available at http://www.puml.org.
  7. [7]
    J. Sun, J.S. Dong, J. Liu, and H. Wang. Z Family on the Web with their UML Photos. Technical Report TR-A1-01, School of Computing, National University of Singapore, January 2001.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Formal Systems (Europe) Ltd. Failures-Divergence Refinement: FDR 2. http://www.formal.demon.co.uk/, December 1995.
  9. [9]
    T. Green and R. Navarro. Programming plans, imagery and visual programming. In Proceedings of INTERACT’ 95, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    T. Green and M. Petre. When visual programs are harder to read than textual programs. In G.C. van der Veer, M.J. Tauber, S. Bagnarola, and M. Antavolits, editors, Human-Computer Interaction: Tasks and Organisation. Proceedings of ECCE6 (6th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics). CUD, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    J. Grundy, R. Back, and J. von Wright. Structured Calculational Proof. Formal Aspects of Computing 9(5–6), 1997.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    D. Harel. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming, 8:231–274, 1987.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    C. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall International UK, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    i-Logix. Statemate: Semantics of Statecharts.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    L. Lamport. How to write a long formula. Technical Report 119, DEC SRC, December 1993.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    N. Leveson, M. Heimdahl, H. Hildreth, and J. Reese. Requirements specification for process-control systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(9):684–707, September 1994. Also Technical Report 92-106 (University of California).Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    S. Liu, A.J. Offutt, C. Ho-Stuart, Y. Sun, and M. Ohba. SOFL: A formal engineering methodology for industrial applications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(1):24–45, January 1998.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    B. Meyer. Object-Oriented Software Construction (Second Edition). Prentice-Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    R. Paige, J. Ostroff, and P. Brooke. Principles of Modelling Language Design. Information and Software Technology, 42(10):665–675, June 2000.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    R. Paige and J. Ostroff. Metamodelling and Conformance Checking with PVS. In Proc. Fundamental Aspects of Software Engineering 2001. LNCS 2029, Springer-Verlag, April 2001.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    M. Petre, A. Blackwell, and T. Green. Cognitive questions in software visualisation. In J. Stasko, J. Domingue, B. Price, and M. Brown, editors, Software Visualisation: Programming as a Multi-Media Experience. MIT Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    M. Petre. Why looking isn’t always seeing: Readership skills and graphical programming. Communications of the ACM, 38(6):33–44, June 1995.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    S. Schneider. Concurrent and Real-time Systems. Wiley, 2000.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    H. Simpson. Four-slot fully asynchronous communication mechanism. IEE Proceedings, 137 Part E(1):17–30, January 1990.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    H. Simpson. Correctness analysis for class of asynchronous communication mechanisms. IEE Proceedings, 139 Part E(1):35–49, January 1992.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    T. Systa, P. Yu, and H. Muller. Analyzing Java Software by Combining Metrics and Program Visualization. In Proc. CSMR-2000, IEEE Press, Feb. 2000.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    M. von der Beeck. A comparison of Statecharts variants. In H. Langmaack, W.P. de Roever, and J. Vytopil, editors, Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems, volume 863 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 128–148. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    S. Owre, N. Shankar, J. Rushby, and D. Stringer-Calvert. PVS System Guide. Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, September 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phillip J. Brooke
    • 1
  • Richard F. Paige
    • 2
  1. 1.School of ComputingUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkHeslington, YorkUK

Personalised recommendations