Contextualization and Dependency in State-Based Modelling - Application to Event-B

  • Souad Kherroubi
  • Dominique MéryEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10563)


Context-awareness is an important feature in system design. We argue that in proof systems and conceptual modelling this notion should be precisely highlighted. Since we focus on conceptual modelling, understandability and clarity are provided precedence for reasoning about proofs done. In this paper, we introduce a new definition for proof context in state-based formalisms with an application in the Event-B modelling language. Furthermore, we introduce a dependency relation between two Event-B models. The contextualization of Event-B models is based on knowledge provided from domains that we classified into constraints, hypotheses and dependencies, according to their truthfulness in proofs. The dependency mechanism between two models makes possible to structure the development of systems models, by organizing phases identified in the analyzed process. These ideas are inspired by works based on the modelling of situations in situation theory that emphasize capabilities of type theory with regard to situation modelling to represent knowledge. Our approach is illustrated on small case studies, and have been validated on a development of design patterns for voting protocols.


  1. 1.
    J.-R. Abrial. Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, 2010Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ameur, Y.A., Méry, D.: Making explicit domain knowledge in formal system development. Sci. Comput. Program. 121, 100–127 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akman, V., Surav, M.: The use of situation theory in context modeling. Comput. Intell. 13(3), 427–438 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andriamiarina, M.B.: Développement d’algorithmes répartis corrects par construction. Thèse, Université de Lorraine, October 2015Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barwise, K.J.: Conditionals and conditional information. In: Traugott, E., ter Meulen, A., Reilly, J., Ferguson, C. (eds.) On Conditionals, pp. 21–54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benaissa, N., Méry, D.: Cryptographic protocols analysis in event B. In: Pnueli, A., Virbitskaite, I., Voronkov, A. (eds.) PSI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5947, pp. 282–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-11486-1_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cortier, V., Fuchsbauer, G., Galindo, D.: BeleniosRF: a strongly receipt-free electronic voting scheme. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2015:629 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dapoigny, R., Barlatier, P.: Modeling contexts with dependent types. Fundam. Inform. 104(4), 293–327 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Devlin, K.: Logic and Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dhaussy, P., Boniol, F.: Mise en œuvre de composants MDA pour la validation formelle de modèles de systèmes d’information embarqués. Ingénierie des Systèmes d’Information 12(5), 133–157 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Costa, P.D., Almeida, J.P.A., Pires, L.F., Guizzardi, G., van Sinderen, M.J.: Towards conceptual foundations for context-aware applications. In: Roth-Berghofer, T.R., Schulz, S., Leake, D.B. (eds.) AAAI Workshop on Modeling and Retrieval of Context 2006, WS-06-, AAAI Technical Report, pp. 54–58, Menlo Park, CA, USA, 2006. AAAI PressGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gibson, J.P., Kherroubi, S., Méry, D.: Applying a dependency mechanism for voting protocol models using event-B. In: Bouajjani, A., Silva, A. (eds.) FORTE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10321, pp. 124–138. Springer, Cham (2017). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-60225-7_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. Number 15 in Telematica Instituut Fundamental Research Series. University of Twente, 2005. ISBN 90-75176-81-3 ISSN 1388-1795Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kotonya, G., Sommerville, I.: Requirements Engineering: Processes and Techniques. Wiley, Hoboken (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCarthy, J.: Notes on formalizing context. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence, IJCAI 1993, vol. 1, pp. 555–560. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Méry, D., Poppleton, M.: Towards an integrated formal method for verification of liveness properties in distributed systems with application to population protocols. Softw. Syst. Model. (SoSyM) (2015).
  17. 17.
    Méry, D., Sawant, R., Tarasyuk, A.: Integrating domain-based features into event-b: a nose gear velocity case study. In: Bellatreche, L., Manolopoulos, Y. (eds.) MEDI 2015. LNCS, vol. 9344, pp. 89–102. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23781-7_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miéville, D.: Un développement des systèmes logiques de stanislaw lesniewski. Peter Lang (1984)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mylopoulos, J.: Information modeling in the time of the revolution. Inf. Syst. 23(3), 127–155 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sutcliffe, A.G., Fickas, S., Sohlberg, M.M.: PC-RE: a method for personal and contextual requirements engineering with some experience. Requir. Eng. 11(3), 157–173 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Lorraine, LORIA UMR CNRS 7503Vandœuvre-lès-NancyFrance

Personalised recommendations