Semantic Heterogeneity in the Formal Development of Complex Systems: An Introduction

  • J. Paul Gibson
  • Idir Aït-Sadoune
  • Marc Pantel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9952)


Nowadays, the formal development of complex systems (including hardware and/or software) implies the writing, synthesis and analysis of many kind of models on which properties are expressed and then formally verified. These models first provide separation of concerns, but also the appropriate level of abstraction to ease the formal verification. However, the building of such heterogeneous models can introduce gaps and information loss between the various models as elements that are explicit in the whole integrated models are only explicit in some concerns and implicit in others. The whole correct development should thus only be conducted on the whole integrated model whereas separate development is mandatory for scalability of system development. More precisely, parts of these systems can be defined within contexts, imported and/or instantiated. Such contexts usually represent the implicit elements and associated semantics for these systems. Several relevant properties are defined on these implicit parts according to the formal technique being used. When considering these properties in their context with the associated explicit semantics, these properties may be not provable or even can be satisfiable in the limited explicit semantics whereas they would be unsatisfiable in the whole semantics including the implicit part. Therefore, the development activities need to be revisited in order to facilitate handling of both the explicit and implicit semantics.


Verification Contexts Domains Implicit Explicit 


  1. 1.
    Hazzan, O., Kramer, J.: The role of abstraction in software engineering. In: Companion of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE Companion 2008, pp. 1045–1046. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldwin, W.C., Sauser, B.: Modeling the characteristics of system of systems. In: IEEE International Conference on System of Systems Engineering, SoSE 2009, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adrion, W.R., Branstad, M.A., Cherniavsky, J.C.: Validation, verification, and testing of computer software. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 14(2), 159–192 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ait-Ameur, Y., Méry, D.: Making explicit domain knowledge in formal system development. Sci. Comput. Program. 121, 100–127 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gibson, J.P., Ait-Sadoune, I.: Semantic heterogeneity in the formal development of complex systems: an introduction. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8803, pp. 570–572. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Attiogbé, C.: Modelling and verifying an evolving distributed control system using an event-based approach. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8803, pp. 573–587. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Khouri, S., Bellatreche, L., Jean, S., Ait-Ameur, Y.: Requirements driven data warehouse design: we can go further. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8803, pp. 588–603. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ait-Ameur, Y., Gibson, J.P., Méry, D.: On implicit and explicit semantics: integration issues in proof-based development of systems. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8803, pp. 604–618. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mammar, A., Laleau, R.: On the use of domain and system knowledge modeling in goal-based event-B specifications. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part I, LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 325–339. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, Proceedings, pp. 249–262. IEEE (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abrial, J.R.: Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jureta, I., Mylopoulos, J., Faulkner, S.: Revisiting the core ontology and problem in requirements engineering. In: 2008 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 71–80. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mammar, A., Laleau, R.: Modeling a landing gear system in event-B. In: Wiels, V., Ait Ameur, Y., Schewe, K.-D., Boniol, F. (eds.) ABZ 2014. CCIS, vol. 433, pp. 80–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hacid, K., Ait-Ameur, Y.: Strengthening mde and formal design models by references to domain ontologies. A model annotation based approach. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part I, LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 340–357. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    France, R., Rumpe, B.: Model-driven development of complex software: a research roadmap. In: 2007 Future of Software Engineering, pp. 37–54. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Djilania, Z., Berkani, N., Bellatreche, L.: Towards functional requirements analytics. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part I, LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 358–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McGinnis, L.: An object oriented and axiomatic theory of warehouse design. In: 12th International Material Handling Research Colloquium, pp. 328–346 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vassiliadis, P.: A survey of extract-transform-load technology. Int. J. Data Warehous. Min. (IJDWM) 5(3), 1–27 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Woodcock, J., Foster, S.: Heterogeneous semantics and unifying theories. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016, Part I, LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 374–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoare, C.A.R., Jifeng, H.: Unifying Theories of Programming, vol. 14. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reynolds, J.C.: Separation logic: a logic for shared mutable data structures. In: 17th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Proceedings, pp. 55–74. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hoare, C.A.R., et al.: Communicating Sequential Processes, vol. 178. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Paul Gibson
    • 1
  • Idir Aït-Sadoune
    • 2
  • Marc Pantel
    • 3
  1. 1.SAMOVAR, Télécom Sud Paris, CNRS, Université Paris SaclayEvry Cedex, ParisFrance
  2. 2.LRI - CentraleSupelec - Université Paris SaclayGif sur YvetteFrance
  3. 3.Institut de Recherche en Informatique de ToulouseToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations