Advertisement

From EU Projects to a Family of Model Checkers

From Kandinsky to KandISTI
  • Maurice H. ter Beek
  • Stefania Gnesi
  • Franco Mazzanti
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8950)

Abstract

We describe the development of the KandISTI family of model checkers from its origins nearly two decades ago until its very recent latest addition. Most progress was made, however, during two integrated European projects, AGILE and SENSORIA, in which our FM&&T lab participated under the scientific coordination of Martin Wirsing. Moreover, the very name of the family of model checkers is partly due to Martin Wirsing’s passion for art and science.

Keywords

Model Checker Product Family Smart City Software Product Line Abstract Syntax 
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.
    Abreu, J., Mazzanti, F., Fiadeiro, J.L., Gnesi, S.: A Model-Checking Approach for Service Component Architectures. In: Lee, D., Lopes, A., Poetzsch-Heffter, A. (eds.) FMOODS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5522, pp. 219–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrade, L., et al.: AGILE: Software Architecture for Mobility. In: Wirsing, M., Pattinson, D., Hennicker, R. (eds.) WADT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2755, pp. 1–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antonik, A., Huth, M., Larsen, K.G., Nyman, U., Wąsowski, A.: 20 Years of Modal and Mixed Specifications. Bulletin of the EATCS 95, 94–129 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asirelli, P., ter Beek, M.H., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S.: A Model-Checking Tool for Families of Services. In: Bruni, R., Dingel, J. (eds.) FORTE 2011 and FMOODS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6722, pp. 44–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Asirelli, P., ter Beek, M.H., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S.: Formal Description of Variability in Product Families. In: SPLC, pp. 130–139. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asirelli, P., ter Beek, M.H., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S.: A Compositional Framework to Derive Product Line Behavioural Descriptions. In: [49], pp. 146–161Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.-P.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ter Beek, M.H.: Sensoria Results Applied to the Case Studies. In: [57], pp. 655–677Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ter Beek, M.H., Bortolussi, L., Ciancia, V., Gnesi, S., Hillston, J., Latella, D., Massink, M.: A Quantitative Approach to the Design and Analysis of Collective Adaptive Systems for Smart Cities. ERCIM News: Smart Cities 98, 32 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ter Beek, M.H., de Vink, E.P.: Software Product Line Analysis with mCRL2. In: [38], pp. 78–85Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ter Beek, M.H., de Vink, E.P.: Towards Modular Verification of Software Product Lines with mCRL2. In: [50], pp. 368–385Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ter Beek, M.H., de Vink, E.P.: Using mCRL2 for the analysis of software product lines. In: FormaliSE, pp. 31–37. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ter Beek, M.H., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S.: Challenges in Modelling and Analyzing Quantitative Aspects of Bike-Sharing Systems. In: [50], pp. 351–367Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ter Beek, M.H., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: A state/event-based model-checking approach for the analysis of abstract system properties. Science of Computer Programming 76(2), 119–135 (2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ter Beek, M.H., Gnesi, S., Koch, N., Mazzanti, F.: Formal verification of an automotive scenario in service-oriented computing. In: ICSE, pp. 613–622. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ter Beek, M.H., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: VMC: A Tool for the Analysis of Variability in Software Product Lines. ERCIM News: Mobile Computing 93, 50–51 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ter Beek, M.H., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: KandISTI: A Family of Model Checkers for the Analysis of Software Designs. ERCIM News: Software Quality 99, 31–32 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ter Beek, M.H., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: Model Checking Value-Passing Modal Specifications. In: PSI. LNCS, Springer (to appear, 2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ter Beek, M.H., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F., Moiso, C.: Formal Modelling and Verification of an Asynchronous Extension of SOAP. In: ECOWS, pp. 287–296. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ter Beek, M.H., Gnesi, S., Montangero, C., Semini, L.: Detecting policy conflicts by model checking UML state machines. In: ICFI, pp. 59–74. IOS Press (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ter Beek, M.H., Lapadula, A., Loreti, M., Palasciano, C.: Analysing Robot Movement Using the Sensoria Methods. In: [57], pp. 678–697Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ter Beek, M.H., Lluch-Lafuente, A., Petrocchi, M.: Combining declarative and procedural views in the specification and analysis of product families. In: SPLC, vol. 2, pp. 10–17. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    ter Beek, M.H., Mazzanti, F.: VMC: Recent Advances and Challenges Ahead. In: [38], pp. 70–77Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    ter Beek, M.H., Mazzanti, F., Gnesi, S.: CMC–UMC: a framework for the verification of abstract service-oriented properties. In: SAC, pp. 2111–2117. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    ter Beek, M.H., Mazzanti, F., Sulova, A.: VMC: A Tool for Product Variability Analysis. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Méry, D. (eds.) FM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7436, pp. 450–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Benavides, D., Segura, S., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: Automated Analysis of Feature Models 20 Years Later: a Literature Review. Information Systems 35(6) (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press (1999)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Classen, A., Cordy, M., Heymans, P., Legay, A., Schobbens, P.-Y.: Formal semantics, modular specification, and symbolic verification of product-line behaviour. Science of Computer Programming 80(B), 416–439 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Classen, A., Cordy, M., Schobbens, P.-Y., Heymans, P., Legay, A., Raskin, J.-F.: Featured Transition Systems: Foundations for Verifying Variability-Intensive Systems and Their Application to LTL Model Checking. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 39(8), 1069–1089 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Clements, P.C., Northrop, L.M.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    De Nicola, R. (ed.): ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    De Nicola, R., Vaandrager, F.W.: Action versus State based Logics for Transition Systems. In: Guessarian, I. (ed.) LITP 1990. LNCS, vol. 469, pp. 407–419. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    De Nicola, R., Vaandrager, F.W.: Three logics for branching bisimulation. Journal of the ACM 42(2), 458–487 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S.: A behavioural model for product families. In: ESEC/FSE, pp. 521–524. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Lapadula, A., Mazzanti, F., Pugliese, R., Tiezzi, F.: A logical verification methodology for service-oriented computing. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 21(3), 16 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fidge, C.: A Comparative Introduction to CSP, CCS and LOTOS. Technical Report 93-24, Software Verification Research Centre, University of Queensland (January 1994)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fischbein, D., Uchitel, S., Braberman, V.A.: A foundation for behavioural conformance in software product line architectures. In: ROSATEA, pp. 39–48. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gnesi, S., Fantechi, A., ter Beek, M.H., Botterweck, G., Becker, M.: Proceedings of the 18th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2014), vol. 2. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: On the Fly Verification of Networks of Automata. In: PDPTA, pp. 1040–1046. CSREA Press (1999)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: An Abstract, on the Fly Framework for the Verification of Service-Oriented Systems. In: [57], pp. 390–407Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gnesi, S., Petrocchi, M.: Towards an executable algebra for product lines. In: SPLC, vol. 2, pp. 66–73. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gruler, A., Leucker, M., Scheidemann, K.: Modeling and Model Checking Software Product Lines. In: Barthe, G., de Boer, F.S. (eds.) FMOODS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5051, pp. 113–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Haugen, Ø., Stølen, K.: STAIRS – Steps To Analyze Interactions with Refinement Semantics. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 388–402. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lapadula, A., Pugliese, R., Tiezzi, F.: A Calculus for Orchestration of Web Services. In: [31], pp. 33–47Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Larsen, K.G., Nyman, U., Wąsowski, A.: Modal I/O Automata for Interface and Product Line Theories. In: [31], pp. 64–79Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lauenroth, K., Pohl, K., Töhning, S.: Model Checking of Domain Artifacts in Product Line Engineering. In: ASE, pp. 269–280. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Leucker, M., Thoma, D.: A Formal Approach to Software Product Families. In: [49], pp. 131–145Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lochau, M., Mennicke, S., Baller, H., Ribbeck, L.: DeltaCCS: A Core Calculus for Behavioral Change. In: [50], pp. 320–335Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.): ISoLA 2012, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7609. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.): ISoLA 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8802. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mazzanti, F., Spagnolo, G.O., Della Longa, S., Ferrari, A.: Deadlock Avoidance in Train Scheduling: A Model Checking Approach. In: Lang, F., Flammini, F. (eds.) FMICS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8718, pp. 109–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mazzanti, F., Spagnolo, G.O., Ferrari, A.: Designing a Deadlock-Free Train Scheduler: A Model Checking Approach. In: Badger, J.M., Rozier, K.Y. (eds.) NFM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8430, pp. 264–269. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Millo, J.-V., Ramesh, S., Krishna, S.N., Narwane, G.K.: Compositional Verification of Software Product Lines. In: Johnsen, E.B., Petre, L. (eds.) IFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 7940, pp. 109–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Muschevici, R., Proença, J., Clarke, D.: Modular Modelling of Software Product Lines with Feature Nets. In: Barthe, G., Pardo, A., Schneider, G. (eds.) SEFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 7041, pp. 318–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pohl, K., Böckle, G., van der Linden, F.J.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pugliese, R., Tiezzi, F.: A Calculus for Orchestration of Web Services. Journal of Applied Logic 10(1), 2–31 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wirsing, M., Hölzl, M. (eds.): SENSORIA. LNCS, vol. 6582. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ziadi, T., Jézéquel, J.-M.: Software Product Line Engineering with the UML: Deriving Products. In: Software Product Lines: Research Issues in Engineering and Management, pp. 557–588. Springer (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurice H. ter Beek
    • 1
  • Stefania Gnesi
    • 1
  • Franco Mazzanti
    • 1
  1. 1.Formal Methods && Tools lab (FM&&T), Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell’Informazione ‘‘A. Faedo’’ (ISTI)Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR)PisaItaly

Personalised recommendations