Data abstraction for CSP-OZ

  • Heike Wehrheim
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1709)


CSP-OZ is an integrated formal method which combines the state-oriented method Object-Z with the process algebra CSP, thereby allowing a description of static as well as dynamic aspects of a system. Checking correctness of CSP-OZ speci_cations can be done via a translation into (FDR-)CSP, on which automatic verification can be performed with the tool FDR if the resulting CSP process is not too large to be processed. This paper investigates how data abstraction techniques can be used to bring a translated specification within range of automatic verification.


Data Abstraction Abstract Interpretation Process Algebra Concrete System Abstraction Function 
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.


  1. [1]
    E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D.E. Long. Model checking and abstraction. In 19th ACM POPL, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    R. Cleaveland and J. Riely. Testing-based abstractions for value-passing systems. In B. Jonsson and J. Parrow, editors, CONCUR’94,volume 836 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 417–432, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Corbett. Constructing abstract models for concurrent real time software. In International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In 4th ACM POPL, 1977.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    D. Dams, O. Grumberg, and R. Gerth. Abstract interpretation of reactive systems: Abstractions preserving ∀CTL✃, ∃ CTL✃and CTL✃. In E.-R. Olderog,editor, Programming concepts, methods and calculi, volume A-56,pages 573–592. Elsevier, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R. Duke, G. Rose, and G. Smith. Object-Z: A specification language advocated for the description of standards. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 17:511–533, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    C. Fischer. CSP-OZ: A combination of Object-Z and CSP. In H. Bowman and J. Derrick, editors, Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems (FMOODS’ 97), volume 2, pages 423–438. Chapman & Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    C. Fischer and H. Wehrheim. Model-checking CSP-OZ specifications with FDR. In IFM’ 99: International Workshop on Integrated Formal Methods, Workshops in Computing.Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Formal Systems (Europe) Ltd. Failures-Divergence Refinement: FDR2 User Manual, Oct 1997.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    J.F. Groote and A. Ponse. Proof theory for μ-CRL: A language for processes with data. In Semantics of specification languages, Workshops in Computing. Springer,1993.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    C. A. R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    B. Jonsson and J. Parrow. Deciding bisimulation equivalence for a class of non-finite state programs.Information and Computation, pages 272–302, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Kolyang, T. Santen, and B. Wolff. A structure preserving encoding of Z in Isabelle/HOL. In J. von Wright, J. Grundy, and J. Harrison, editors, Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics, LNCS 1125, pages 283–298. Springer Verlag, 1996. Data Abstraction for CSP-OZ 1045Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    C. Loiseaux, S. Graf, J. Sifakis, A. Bouajjani, and S. Bensalem. Property preserving abstractions for the verification of concurrent systems. Formal methods in system design, 6:1–35,1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    I. Meisels and M. Saaltink.The Z/EVES Reference Manual. ORA Canada, 1997.
  16. [16]
    A. Mota and A. Sampaio. Model-checking CSP-Z.In Proceedings of the European Joint Conference on Theory and Practice of Software, volume 1382 of LNCS,pages 205–220, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    J. Quemada, editor. Revised working draft on enhancements to LOTOS (V4). 1996.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    A. W. Roscoe. The Theory and Practice of Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    A. W. Roscoe, J. C. P. Woodcock, and L. Wulf. Non-interference through determinism.In D. Gollmann, editor, ESORICS 94, volume 875 of LNCS, pages 33–54.Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    G. Smith. A semantic integration of Object-Z and CSP for the specification of concurrent systems. In J. Fitzgerald, C. B. Jones, and P. Lucas, editors, Proceedings of FME 1997, volume 1313 of LNCS, pages 62–81. Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    J. M. Spivey. The Z Notation: A Reference Manual.Prentice-Hall International Series in Computer Science, 2nd edition, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    K. Taguchi and K. Araki. Specifying concurrent systems by Z + CCS. In International Symposium on Future Software Technology (ISFST), pages 101–108,1997.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    P. Wolper.Expressing interesting properties of programs in propositional temporal logic. InACM POPL, pages 184–193, 1986.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    J. Woodcock and J. Davies. Using Z. Prentice-Hall International, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heike Wehrheim
    • 1
  1. 1.Fachbereich InformatikUniversität OldenburgOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations