Advertisement

Consistency of Partial Process Specifications

  • Maarten Steen
  • John Derrick
  • Eerke Boiten
  • Howard Bowman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1548)

Abstract

The structuring of the specification and development of distributed systems according to viewpoints, as advocated by the Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing, raises the question of when such viewpoint specifications may be considered consistent with one another. In this paper, we analyse the notion of consistency in the context of formal process specification. It turns out that different notions of correctness give rise to different consistency relations. Each notion of consistency is formally characterised and placed in a spectrum of consistency relations. An example illustrates the use of these relations for consistency checking.

Keywords

Sequence Diagram Label Transition System Consistency Relation Bottom Element Mentation Relation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    T. Bolognesi and E. Brinksma. Introduction to the ISO specification language LOTOS. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 14:25–59, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Booch. Object oriented design with applications. Benjamin/Cummings, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Brinksma, G. Scollo, and C. Steenbergen. LOTOS specifications, their implementations and their tests. In Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification VI, pages 349–360. IFIP, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Cleaveland and B. Steffen. A preorder for partial process specifications. In J. C. M. Baeten and J. W. Klop, editors, CONCUR’ 90: Theories of Concurrency: Unification and Extension, LNCS 458, pages 141–151. Springer-Verlag, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer, B. Nuseibeh, L. Finkelstein, and M. Goedicke. View-points: a framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development. International Journal on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Spe-cial issue on Trends and Research Directions in Software Engineering Environ-ments, 2(1):31–58, March 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Fischer and G. Smith. Combining CSP and Object-Z: Finite or infinite trace semantics. In T. Mizuno, N. Shiratori, T. Higashino, and A. Togashi, editors, FORTE/PSTV’97, pages 503–518, Osaka, Japan, November 1997. Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. J. van Glabbeek. The linear time-branching time spectrum II; the semantics of sequential systems with silent moves (extended abstract). In E. Best, editor, CONCUR’93, LNCS 715, pages 66–81. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. A. R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21/WG7. Basic Reference Model of Open Distributed Processing. ISO 10746, 1993. Parts 1–4.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. G. Larsen. Ideal specification formalism = expressivity + compositionality + decidability + testability +—. In CONCUR’90. Theories of Concurrency: Unification and Extensions, LNCS 458, pages 33–56. Springer-Verlag, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. G. Larsen. Modal specifications. In J. Sifakis, editor, Automatic Verification Methods for Finite State Systems: Proceedings, LNCS 407, pages 232–246. Springer Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Leduc. On the Role of Implementation Relations in the Design of Distributed Systems using LOTOS. PhD thesis, University of Liège, Belgium, June 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Leduc. A framework based on implementation relations for implementing LO-TOS specifications. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 25:23–41, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. F. Linington. RM-ODP: The Architecture. In K. Raymond and L. Armstrong, editors, Open Distributed Processing II, pages 15–33. Chapman & Hall, February 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Sinnott and K. J. Turner. Modeling ODP viewpoints. In H. Kilov, W. Harvey, and H. Mili, editors, Workshop on Precise Behavioral Specifications in Object-Oriented Information Modeling, OOPSLA 1994, pages 121–128. OOPSLA, October1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. W. A. Steen. Consistency and Composition of Process Specifications. PhD thesis, University of Kent at Canterbury, May 1998. Submitted for examination.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. W. A. Steen, H. Bowman, and J. Derrick. Composition of LOTOS specifications. In P. Dembiński and M. Średniawa, editors, Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification XV, pages 87–102. Chapman & Hall, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maarten Steen
    • 1
  • John Derrick
    • 1
  • Eerke Boiten
    • 1
  • Howard Bowman
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing LaboratoryUniversity of Kent at CanterburyCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations