From LOTOS to LNT

Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10500)

Abstract

We revisit the early publications of Ed Brinksma devoted, on the one hand, to the definition of the formal description technique LOTOS (ISO International Standard 8807:1989) for specifying communication protocols and distributed systems, and, on the other hand, to two proposals (Extended LOTOS and Modular LOTOS) for making LOTOS a simpler and more expressive language. We examine how this scientific agenda has been dealt with during the last decades. We review the successive enhancements of LOTOS that led to the definition of three languages: E-LOTOS (ISO International Standard 15437:2001), then LOTOS NT, and finally LNT. We present the software implementations (compilers and translators) developed for these new languages and report about their use in various application domains.

Keywords

Abstract data type Algebraic specification Concurrency theory E-LOTOS Formal description technique Formal method Formal specification LOTOS LNT Process algebra Process calculus Specification language 

References

  1. 1.
    Abid, R., Salaün, G., Bongiovanni, F., De Palma, N.: Verification of a dynamic management protocol for cloud applications. In: Van Hung, D., Ogawa, M. (eds.) ATVA 2013. LNCS, vol. 8172, pp. 178–192. Springer, Cham (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02444-8_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur, R., Dill, D.L.: A theory of timed automata. Theor. Comput. Sci. 126(2), 183–235 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arnold, F., Belinfante, A., Van der Berg, F., Guck, D., Stoelinga, M.: DFTCalc: a tool for efficient fault tree analysis. In: Bitsch, F., Guiochet, J., Kaâniche, M. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2013. LNCS, vol. 8153, pp. 293–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40793-2_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berthomieu, B., Bodeveix, J.P., Farail, P., Filali, M., Garavel, H., Gaufillet, P., Lang, F., Vernadat, F.: FIACRE: an intermediate language for model verification in the TOPCASED environment. In: Laprie, J.C. (ed.) Proceedings of the 4th European Congress on Embedded Real-Time Software (ERTS 2008), Toulouse, France, January 2008Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berthomieu, B., Le Sergent, T.: Programming with behaviors in an ML framework — the syntax and semantics of LCS. In: Sannella, D. (ed.) ESOP 1994. LNCS, vol. 788, pp. 89–104. Springer, Heidelberg (1994). doi:10.1007/3-540-57880-3_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bolognesi, T., Brinksma, E.: Introduction to the ISO specification language LOTOS. Comput. Netw. ISDN Syst. 14(1), 25–59 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boullier, P., Jourdan, M.: A new error repair and recovery scheme for lexical and syntactic analysis. Sci. Comput. Program. 9(3), 271–286 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boyer, F., Gruber, O., Salaün, G.: Specifying and verifying the SYNERGY reconfiguration protocol with LOTOS NT and CADP. In: Butler, M., Schulte, W. (eds.) FM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6664, pp. 103–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21437-0_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brinksma, E., Leih, G.: Enhancements of LOTOS. In: Bolognesi, T., Lagemaat, J., Vissers, C. (eds.) LOTOSphere: Software Development with LOTOS, pp. 453–466. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brinksma, E.: A tutorial on LOTOS. In: Diaz, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 5th IFIP International Workshop on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification (PSTV 1885), Moissac, France, pp. 171–194. North-Holland, Amsterdam, June 1985Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brinksma, E.: On the design of Extended LOTOS - a specification language for open distributed systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, November 1988Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brinksma, E.: Constraint-oriented specification in a constructive formal description technique. In: de Bakker, J.W., de Roever, W.-P., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) REX 1989. LNCS, vol. 430, pp. 130–152. Springer, Heidelberg (1990). doi:10.1007/3-540-52559-9_63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brinksma, E.: Task 1.4 Deliverable on Language Enhancements, LOTOSphere (ESPRIT Projet 2304) Document ref. Lo/WP1/T1.4/N0016/V3, 146 p., April 1992Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brinksma, E., Karjoth, G.: A specification of the OSI transport service in LOTOS. In: Yemini, Y., Strom, R.E., Yemini, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th IFIP International Workshop on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, Skytop Lodge, PA, USA, pp. 227–251. North-Holland, Amsterdam, June 1984Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brinksma, E., Katoen, J.P., Langerak, R., Latella, D.: A stochastic causality-based process algebra. Comput. J. 38(7), 552–565 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brinksma, E., Tretmans, J., Verhaard, L.: A framework for test selection. In: Jonsson, B., Parrow, J., Pehrson, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP WG6.1 9th International Symposium on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, Stockholm, Sweden. pp. 233–248. North-Holland, Amsterdam, June 1991Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brookes, S.D., Hoare, C.A.R., Roscoe, A.W.: A theory of communicating sequential processes. J. ACM 31(3), 560–599 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    CCITT: Specification and Description Language. Recommendation Z.100, International Consultative Committee for Telephony and Telegraphy, Geneva, March 1988Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Champelovier, D., Clerc, X., Garavel, H., Guerte, Y., McKinty, C., Powazny, V., Lang, F., Serwe, W., Smeding, G.: Reference Manual of the LNT to LOTOS Translator (Version 6.7), INRIA, Grenoble, France, July 2017Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chebieb, A., Ameur, Y.A.: Formal verification of plastic user interfaces exploiting domain ontologies. In: Zhiqiu, H., Jun, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering (TASE 2015), Nanjing, China, pp. 79–86. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, D.C. (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clark, R.G., Moreira, A.: Use of E-LOTOS in adding formality to UML. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 6(11), 1071–1087 (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Courtiat, J., Santos, C.A.S., Lohr, C., Outtaj, B.: Experience with RT-LOTOS, a temporal extension of the LOTOS formal description technique. Comput. Commun. 23(12), 1104–1123 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crouzen, P., Lang, F.: Smart reduction. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Orejas, F. (eds.) FASE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6603, pp. 111–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19811-3_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Souza, W.L., et al.: Design of distributed multimedia applications (DAMD). In: Hutter, D., Stephan, W., Traverso, P., Ullmann, M. (eds.) FM-Trends 1998. LNCS, vol. 1641, pp. 77–91. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). doi:10.1007/3-540-48257-1_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ehrig, H., Fey, W., Hansen, H.: An algebraic specification language with two levels of semantics. Bericht No. 83-03, Fachbereich 20-Informatik, Technische Universität Berlin (1983)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ehrig, H., Mahr, B.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 1: Equations and Initial Semantics. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 6. Springer, Heidelberg (1985). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69962-7 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Etchevers, X., Salaün, G., Boyer, F., Coupaye, T., Palma, N.D.: Reliable self-deployment of distributed cloud applications. Softw. Pract. Exp. 47(1), 3–20 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Evrard, H.: Génération automatique d’implémentation distribuée à partir de modèles formels de processus concurrents asynchrones. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Grenoble, July 2015Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Evrard, H.: DLC: compiling a concurrent system formal specification to a distributed implementation. In: Chechik, M., Raskin, J.-F. (eds.) TACAS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9636, pp. 553–559. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49674-9_34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Evrard, H., Lang, F.: Formal verification of distributed branching multiway synchronization protocols. In: Beyer, D., Boreale, M. (eds.) FMOODS/FORTE -2013. LNCS, vol. 7892, pp. 146–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38592-6_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Evrard, H., Lang, F.: Automatic distributed code generation from formal models of asynchronous concurrent processes. In: Aldinucci, M., Daneshtalab, M., Leppänen, V., Lilius, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-based Processing - Special Session on Formal Approaches to Parallel and Distributed Systems (PDP/4PAD 2015), Turku, Finland, pp. 459–466. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, D.C., March 2015Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Evrard, H., Lang, F.: Automatic distributed code generation from formal models of asynchronous processes interacting by multiway rendezvous. J. Log. Algebr. Methods Program. 88, 121–153 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Garavel, H.: Utilisation du système CESAR pour la vérification de protocoles spécifiés en LOTOS. Rapport SPECTRE C2, Laboratoire de Génie Informatique - Institut IMAG, Grenoble, December 1986Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Garavel, H.: Vérification de programmes LOTOS à l’aide du système QUASAR. Master’s thesis, Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, September 1986Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Garavel, H.: Compilation of LOTOS abstract data types. In: Vuong, S.T. (ed.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Formal Description Techniques FORTE 1989, Vancouver BC, Canada, pp. 147–162. North-Holland, Amsterdam, December 1989Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Garavel, H.: On the introduction of gate typing in E-LOTOS. In: Dembinski, P., Sredniawa, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th IFIP International Workshop on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification (PSTV 1995), Warsaw, Poland, pp. 283–298. Chapman & Hall, New York, June 1995Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Garavel, H.: OPEN/CÆSAR: an open software architecture for verification, simulation, and testing. In: Steffen, B. (ed.) TACAS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1384, pp. 68–84. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). doi:10.1007/BFb0054165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Garavel, H.: Défense et illustration des algèbres de processus. In: Mammeri, Z. (ed.) Actes de l’Ecole d’été Temps Réel ETR 2003, Toulouse, France. Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse, September 2003Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Garavel, H.: Reflections on the future of concurrency theory in general and process calculi in particular. In: Palamidessi, C., Valencia, F.D. (eds.) Proceedings of the LIX Colloquium on Emerging Trends in Concurrency Theory, Ecole Polytechnique de Paris, France, 13–15 November 2006. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 209, pp. 149–164. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, April 2008. Also available as INRIA Research Report RR-6368Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Garavel, H.: Revisiting sequential composition in process calculi. J. Log. Algebr. Methods Program. 84(6), 742–762 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Garavel, H., Hermanns, H.: On combining functional verification and performance evaluation using CADP. In: Eriksson, L.-H., Lindsay, P.A. (eds.) FME 2002. LNCS, vol. 2391, pp. 410–429. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi:10.1007/3-540-45614-7_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F.: SVL: a scripting language for compositional verification. In: Kim, M., Chin, B., Kang, S., Lee, D. (eds.) FORTE 2001. IIFIP, vol. 69, pp. 377–392. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002). doi:10.1007/0-306-47003-9_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F.: NTIF: a general symbolic model for communicating sequential processes with data. In: Peled, D.A., Vardi, M.Y. (eds.) FORTE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2529, pp. 276–291. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi:10.1007/3-540-36135-9_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R.: Compiler construction using LOTOS NT. In: Horspool, R.N. (ed.) CC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2304, pp. 9–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi:10.1007/3-540-45937-5_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: CADP 2011: a toolbox for the construction and analysis of distributed processes. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (STTT) 15(2), 89–107 (2013). SpringerCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Garavel, H., Salaün, G., Serwe, W.: On the semantics of communicating hardware processes and their translation into LOTOS for the verification of asynchronous circuits with CADP. Sci. Comput. Program. 74(3), 100–127 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Garavel, H., Serwe, W.: The unheralded value of the multiway rendezvous: illustration with the production cell benchmark. In: Hermanns, H., Höfner, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Models for Formal Analysis of Real Systems (MARS 2017), Uppsala, Sweden, vol. 244, pp. 230–270. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, April 2017Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Garavel, H., Sifakis, J.: Compilation and verification of LOTOS specifications. In: Logrippo, L., Probert, R.L., Ural, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th IFIP International Symposium on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification (PSTV 1990), Ottawa, Canada, pp. 379–394. North-Holland, Amsterdam, June 1990Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Garavel, H., Sighireanu, M.: On the introduction of exceptions in LOTOS. In: Gotzhein, R., Bredereke, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP Joint International Conference on Formal Description Techniques for Distributed Systems and Communication Protocols, and Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification (FORTE/PSTV 1996), Kaiserslautern, Germany, pp. 469–484. Chapman & Hall, New York, October 1996Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Garavel, H., Sighireanu, M.: Towards a second generation of formal description techniques - rationale for the design of E-LOTOS. In: Groote, J.F., Luttik, B., Wamel, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems (FMICS 1998), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 187–230. CWI, Amsterdam, May 1998. Invited lectureGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Garavel, H., Sighireanu, M.: A graphical parallel composition operator for process algebras. In: Wu, J., Chanson, S.T., Gao, Q. (eds.) Formal Methods for Protocol Engineering and Distributed Systems. IAICT, vol. 28, pp. 185–202. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Garavel, H., Thivolle, D.: Verification of GALS systems by combining synchronous languages and process calculi. In: Păsăreanu, C.S. (ed.) SPIN 2009. LNCS, vol. 5578, pp. 241–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02652-2_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Graf-Brill, A., Hermanns, H., Garavel, H.: A model-based certification framework for the EnergyBus standard. In: Ábrahám, E., Palamidessi, C. (eds.) FORTE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8461, pp. 84–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-43613-4_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Guck, D., Spel, J., Stoelinga, M.: DFTCalc: reliability centered maintenance via fault tree analysis (tool paper). In: Butler, M., Conchon, S., Zaïdi, F. (eds.) ICFEM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9407, pp. 304–311. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25423-4_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Güdemann, M., Salaün, G., Ouederni, M.: Counterexample guided synthesis of monitors for realizability enforcement. In: Chakraborty, S., Mukund, M. (eds.) ATVA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7561, pp. 238–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33386-6_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Huecas, G., Llana-Díaz, L., Quemada, J., Robles, T., Verdejo, A.: Process calculi: E-LOTOS. In: Bowman, H., Derrick, J. (eds.) Formal Methods for Distributed Processing: A Survey of Object-Oriented Approaches, pp. 77–104. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Huecas, G., Llana-Díaz, L., Robles, T., Verdejo, A.: E-LOTOS: an overview. In: Marsan, M.A., Quemada, J., Robles, T., Silva, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Formal Methods and Telecommunications (WFMT’99), Zaragoza, Spain, pp. 94–102. Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza, September 1999Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    ISO/IEC: LOTOS - A Formal Description Technique Based on the Temporal Ordering of Observational Behaviour. Draft International Standard 8807, International Organization for Standardization - Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection, Geneva, July 1987Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    ISO/IEC: ESTELLE - A Formal Description Technique Based on an Extended State Transition Model. International Standard 9074, International Organization for Standardization - Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection, Geneva, September 1988Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    ISO/IEC: LOTOS - A Formal Description Technique Based on the Temporal Ordering of Observational Behaviour. International Standard 8807, International Organization for Standardization - Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection, Geneva, September 1989Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    ISO/IEC: Enhancements to LOTOS (E-LOTOS). International Standard 15437:2001, International Organization for Standardization - Information Technology, Geneva, September 2001Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Jebali, F., Lang, F., Mateescu, R.: Formal modelling and verification of GALS systems using GRL and CADP. Formal Asp. Comput. 28(5), 767–804 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Jourdan, M., Parigot, D.: Application development with the FNC-2 attribute grammar system. In: Hammer, D. (ed.) CC 1990. LNCS, vol. 477, pp. 11–25. Springer, Heidelberg (1991). doi:10.1007/3-540-53669-8_71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kriouile, A., Serwe, W.: Formal analysis of the ACE specification for cache coherent systems-on-chip. In: Pecheur, C., Dierkes, M. (eds.) FMICS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8187, pp. 108–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41010-9_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kriouile, A., Serwe, W.: Using a formal model to improve verification of a cache-coherent system-on-chip. In: Baier, C., Tinelli, C. (eds.) TACAS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9035, pp. 708–722. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_62 Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lang, F.: Compositional verification using SVL scripts. In: Katoen, J.-P., Stevens, P. (eds.) TACAS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2280, pp. 465–469. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi:10.1007/3-540-46002-0_33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lang, F.: Exp.Open 2.0: a flexible tool integrating partial order, compositional, and on-the-fly verification methods. In: Romijn, J., Smith, G., van de Pol, J. (eds.) IFM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3771, pp. 70–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi:10.1007/11589976_6. Full version available as INRIA Research Report RR-5673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lang, F., Salaün, G., Hérilier, R., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Translating FSP into LOTOS and networks of automata. Formal Asp. Comput. 22(6), 681–711 (2010)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lantreibecq, E., Serwe, W.: Formal analysis of a hardware dynamic task dispatcher with CADP. Sci. Comput. Program. 80(Part A), 130–149 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Leduc, G., Jeffrey, A., Sighireanu, M.: Introduction à E-LOTOS. In: Cavalli, A. (ed.) Ingénierie des protocoles et qualité de service. Collection IC2, chap. 6, pp. 213–253. Hermès, Paris (2001)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Léonard, L., Leduc, G.: An introduction to ET-LOTOS for the description of time-sensitive systems. Comput. Netw. ISDN Syst. 29(3), 271–292 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Léonard, L., Leduc, G.: A formal definition of time in LOTOS. Formal Asp. Comput. 10(3), 248–266 (1998)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Li, X., Madnick, S., Zhu, H., Fan, Y.: Improving data quality for web services composition. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Quality in Databases (QDB 2009), Lyon, France, August 2009Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Massetto, F.I., de Souza, W.L., Zorzo, S.D.: Simulator for E-LOTOS specifications. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Simulation Symposium (SS 2002), San Diego, California, USA, pp. 389–394. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, D.C., April 2002Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Mateescu, R.: A generic framework for model checking software architectures. In: Augusto, J.C., Ultes-Nitsche, U. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Verification and Validation of Enterprise Information Systems (VVEIS 2004), Porto, Portugal. INSTICC Press, April 2004. Keynote presentationGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Mateescu, R., Monteiro, P.T., Dumas, E., de Jong, H.: Computation tree regular logic for genetic regulatory networks. In: Cha, S.S., Choi, J.-Y., Kim, M., Lee, I., Viswanathan, M. (eds.) ATVA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5311, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88387-6_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Mateescu, R., Salaün, G.: PIC2LNT: model transformation for model checking an applied pi-calculus. In: Piterman, N., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) TACAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7795, pp. 192–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36742-7_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: Model checking and performance evaluation with CADP illustrated on shared-memory mutual exclusion protocols. Sci. Comput. Program. 78(7), 843–861 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Mateescu, R., Thivolle, D.: A model checking language for concurrent value-passing systems. In: Cuellar, J., Maibaum, T., Sere, K. (eds.) FM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5014, pp. 148–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68237-0_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    de Meer, J., Roth, R., Vuong, S.: Introduction to algebraic specifications based on the language ACT ONE. Comput. Netw. ISDN Syst. 23(5), 363–392 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Milne, G.J.: CIRCAL and the representation of communication, concurrency, and time. ACM Trans. Progr. Lang. Syst. 7(2), 270–298 (1985)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Milner, R. (ed.): A Calculus of Communicating Systems. LNCS, vol. 92. Springer, Heidelberg (1980). doi:10.1007/3-540-10235-3 MATHGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Milner, R.: Calculi for synchrony and asynchrony. Theor. Comput. Sci. 25, 267–310 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Mkaouar, H., Zalila, B., Hugues, J., Jmaiel, M.: From AADL model to LNT specification. In: de la Puente, J.A., Vardanega, T. (eds.) Ada-Europe 2015. LNCS, vol. 9111, pp. 146–161. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19584-1_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Oliveira, R., Dupuy-Chessa, S., Calvary, G., Dadolle, D.: Using formal models to cross check an implementation. In: Luyten, K., Palanque, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (EICS 2016), Brussels, Belgium, pp. 126–137. ACM, New York, June 2016Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Poizat, P., Salaün, G.: Checking the realizability of BPMN 2.0 choreographies. In: Proceedings of the 27th Symposium On Applied Computing (SAC 2012), Riva del Garda, Italy. ACM Press, New York, March 2012Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Poizat, P., Salaün, G., Krishna, A.: Checking business process evolution. In: Kouchnarenko, O., Khosravi, R. (eds.) FACS 2016. LNCS, vol. 10231, pp. 36–53. Springer, Cham (2017). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57666-4_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ponsini, O., Fédèle, C., Kounalis, E.: Rewriting of imperative programs into logical equations. Sci. Comput. Program. 56(3), 363–401 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Quemada, J.: E-LOTOS Has Born, February 1997. Email announcement available from ftp://ftp.inrialpes.fr/pub/vasy/publications/elotos/announce-97.txt
  90. 90.
    Roth, R., de Meer, J., Storp, S.: Data specifications in Modular LOTOS. In: Bolognesi, T., Lagemaat, J., Vissers, C. (eds.) LOTOSphere: Software Development with LOTOS, pp. 467–479. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Serwe, W.: Formal specification and verification of fully asynchronous implementations of the Data Encryption Standard. In: van Glabbeek, R., Groote, J.F., Höfner, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Models for Formal Analysis of Real Systems (MARS 2015), Suva, Fiji. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 196. Open Publishing Association (2015)Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Shankland, C., Verdejo, A.: Time, E-LOTOS, and the FireWire. In: Marsan, M.A., Quemada, J., Robles, T., Silva, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Formal Methods and Telecommunications (WFMT 1999), Zaragoza, Spain, pp. 103–119. Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza, September 1999Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Shankland, C., Verdejo, A.: A case study in abstraction using E-LOTOS and the FireWire. Comput. Netw. 37(3/4), 481–502 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Sighireanu, M.: Contribution à la définition et à l’implémentation du langage “Extended LOTOS”. Thèse de Doctorat, Université Joseph Fourier (Grenoble), January 1999Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Sighireanu, M., Catry, A., Champelovier, D., Garavel, H., Lang, F., Schaeffer, G., Serwe, W., Stoecker, J.: LOTOS NT User’s Manual (Version 2.8), INRIA/CONVECS, Grenoble, France, 109 p. ftp://ftp.inrialpes.fr/pub/vasy/traian/manual.pdf
  96. 96.
    Sighireanu, M., Turner, K.: Requirement capture, formal description and verification of an invoicing system. Research Report RR-3575, INRIA, Grenoble, December 1998Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Stöcker, J., Lang, F., Garavel, H.: Parallel processes with real-time and data: the ATLANTIF intermediate format. In: Leuschel, M., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) IFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5423, pp. 88–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-00255-7_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Thivolle, D.: Langages modernes pour la vérification des systèmes asynchrones. Thèse de Doctorat, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France and Universitatea Politehnica din Bucuresti, Bucharest, Romania, April 2011Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Turner, K.J., Sighireanu, M.: (E)-Lotos: (enhanced) language of temporal ordering specification. In: Frappier, M., Habrias, H. (eds.) Software Specification Methods: An Overview Using a Case Study, pp. 166–190. Springer, London (2001). doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-0701-9_10 Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Vekris, D., Lang, F., Dima, C., Mateescu, R.: Verification of EB3 specifications using CADP. Formal Asp. Comput. 28(1), 145–178 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Verdejo, A.: E-LOTOS: Tutorial and Semantics. Master’s thesis, Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos y Programación, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain, June 1999Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Wu, H., Yang, X., Katoen, J.-P.: Performance evaluation of concurrent data structures. In: Fränzle, M., Kapur, D., Zhan, N. (eds.) SETTA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9984, pp. 38–49. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47677-3_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Zhang, Z., Serwe, W., Wu, J., Zheng, T.Y.H., Myers, C.: An improved fault-tolerant routing algorithm for a network-on-chip derived with formal analysis. Sci. Comput. Program. 118, 24–39 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hubert Garavel
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Frédéric Lang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Wendelin Serwe
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.INRIAGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.Univ. Grenoble Alpes, LIGGrenobleFrance
  3. 3.CNRS, LIGGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations