Comparative survey

Summary and evaluation of the case study “Production Cell”
  • Claus Lewerentz
  • Thomas Lindner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 891)


This chapter summarizes the knowledge gained through work with the different modelling, specification, verification, and validation approaches to the Production Cell problem. Each of the 18 contributions is briefly presented and discussed according to a set of evaluation criteria. It turns out, that it is not easy to directly compare the different contributions, because different aspects of the same problem have been modelled, formally specified, or verified. The section on evaluation summarizes the most important conclusions concerning the suitability of the different approaches to tasks of which the Production Cell is representative.


Control Program Model Check Production Cell Temporal Logic Specification Language 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    C. Albers. Spezifikation und Verifikation einer industriellen Fertigungszelle mit Object-Z. Diploma thesis, 1994, Forschungszentrum Informatik, Haid-und-Neu-Straße 10–14, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany. In German language.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. C. M. Baeten, W. P. Weijland. Process Algebra. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 18, Cambridge University Press, 1990Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    D. Barnard, J. Cuellar, M. Huber. A Tutorial Introduction to TLT-Part I: The Design of Distributed Systems;-Part II: The Verification of Distributed Systems, Technical report Siemens ZFE BT SE 11, 1994Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. Broy, F. Dederichs, C. Dendorfer, M. Fuchs, T. F. Gritzner, and R. Weber. The design of distributed systems — an introduction to Focus. Technical Report SFB 342/2/92, Technische Universität München, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Broy, C. Facchi, R. Grosu, R. Hettler, H. Hußmann, D. Nazareth, F. Regensburger, and K. Stølen. The requirement and design specification language Spectrum, an informal introduction. Technical Report TUM-I9140, Technische Universität München, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. R. Burch, E. M. Clare, K. L. McMillan, D. L. Dill, and J. Hwang. Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference on Logic in Computer Science, pages 428–439, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    E. Casais. An Experiment in Framework Development. Technical Report, 29 pp., Forschungszentrum Informatik, Haid-und-Neu-Straße 10–14, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    K. M. Chandy, J. Misra. Parallel Program Design — A Foundation. Addison-Wesley, 1988Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    E. M. Clarke, E. A. Emerson, and A. P. Sistla. Automatic verification of finite state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 117–126, 1983.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    B. Dutertre. Spécification et preuve de systèmes dynamiques. Ph.D. thesis, University of Rennes 1, France, December 1992. (In French)Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    F. Erasmy, E. Sekerinski. Stepwise Refinement of Control Software — A Case Study using RAISE. Proceedings of the FME 94, Barcelona, Spain, LNCS, Springer Verlag, to appear.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    R. B. Feenstra, R. J. Wieringa. LCM 3.0: a language for describing conceptual models. Technical Report IR-344, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, December 1993Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Th. Filkorn, H.-A. Schneider, A. Scholz, A. Strasser, P. Warkentin, SVE System Verification Environment, to appearGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    S. Conrad, M. Gogolla, and R. Herzig. TROLL light: A core language for specifying objects. Informatik-Bericht 92-02, Technische Universität Braunschweig, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    M. J. C. Gordon, T. F. Melham. Introduction to the HOL System, Cambridge University Press, March 1994Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    N. Halbwachs. Synchronous Programming of Reactive Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    S. P. Harbison. Modula-3. Prentice Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    D. Harel. A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming, 8:231–274, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    M. Heisel, W. Reif, W. Stephan: A Dynamic Logic for Program Verification. “Logic at Botik” 89, Meyer, Taitslin (eds.), Springer LNCS 1989.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    M. Heisel, W. Reif, W. Stephan: Tactical Theorem Proving in Program Verification. 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Kaiserslautern, FRG, Springer LNCS 1990.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    R. W. S. Hale, R. M. Cardell-Oliver, J. M. J. Herbert, An Embedding of Timed Transition Systems in HOL. Formal Methods in System Design, 3(1&2),pages 151–174, Kluwer, September 1993Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    T. A. Henzinger, Z. Manna, A. Pnueli, Temporal proof methodologies for real-time systems. In Proceedings of the 18th Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. ACM Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    C. A. R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    T. Käufl. The program verifier Tatzelwurm. In H. Kersten, editor, Sichere Software: Formale Spezifikation und Verifikation vertrauenswürdiger Systeme. 1990.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    L. Lamport. The Temporal Logic of Actions. Technical Report, Digital Systems Research Center, 1991Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Z. Manna and R. Waldinger. A deductive approach to program synthesis. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 2(1):90–121, Jan. 1980.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    B. Meyer. Object-oriented Software Construction. Prentice Hall, 1988.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    O. Nierstrasz, S. Gibbs, and D. Tsichritzis. Component-oriented software development. Communications of the ACM, 35(9):160–165, Sept. 1992.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    J. L. Petersen. Specifying a computer controlled forging machine. Diploma Thesis, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, 1994.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    J. L. Peterson. Petri Net Theory and the Modelling of Systems. Prentice Hall, 1981.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    R. Schlör and W. Damm. Specification and verification of system-level hardware designs using timing diagrams. In The European Conference on Design Automation with the European Event in ASIC Design, pages 518–524, 1993.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    R. M. Smullyan. First Order Logic. Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1968.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claus Lewerentz
    • 1
  • Thomas Lindner
    • 1
  1. 1.Forschungszentrum InformatikKarlsruhe

Personalised recommendations