Advertisement

Event-B Expression and Verification of Translation Rules Between SysML/KAOS Domain Models and B System Specifications

  • Steve Jeffrey Tueno FotsoEmail author
  • Amel Mammar
  • Régine Laleau
  • Marc Frappier
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10817)

Abstract

This paper is about the extension of the SysML/KAOS requirements engineering method with domain models expressed as ontologies. More precisely, it concerns the translation of these ontologies into B System for system construction. The contributions of this paper are twofold. The first one is a formal semantics for the ontology modeling language. The second one is the formal definition of translation rules between ontologies and B system specifications in order to provide the structural part of the formal specification. These translation rules are modeled in Event-B. Their consistency and completeness are proved using Rodin. We show that they are structure preserving (two related elements within the source model remain related within the target model), by proving various isomorphisms between the ontology and the B System specification.

Keywords

Event-B B system Domain modeling Ontologies SysML/KAOS 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work is carried out within the framework of the FORMOSE project [5] funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR). It is also partly supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.: Modeling in Event-B - System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alkhammash, E., Butler, M.J., Fathabadi, A.S., Cîrstea, C.: Building traceable Event-B models from requirements. Sci. Comput. Program. 111, 318–338 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alkhammash, Eman H.: Derivation of Event-B models from OWL ontologies. In: MATEC Web Conference, vol. 76, p. 04008 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ameur, Y.A., Baron, M., Bellatreche, L., Jean, S., Sardet, E.: Ontologies in engineering: the OntoDB/OntoQL platform. Soft. Comput. 21(2), 369–389 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ANR-14-CE28-0009: Formose ANR project (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bjørner, D., Eir, A.: Compositionality: ontology and mereology of domains. In: Dams, D., Hannemann, U., Steffen, M. (eds.) Concurrency, Compositionality, and Correctness. LNCS, vol. 5930, pp. 22–59. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11512-7_3CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boniol, F., Wiels, V.: The landing gear system case study. In: Boniol, F., Wiels, V., Ait Ameur, Y., Schewe, K.-D. (eds.) ABZ 2014. CCIS, vol. 433, pp. 1–18. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07512-9_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Butler, M., Jones, C.B., Romanovsky, A., Troubitsyna, E. (eds.): Rigorous Development of Complex Fault-Tolerant Systems. LNCS, vol. 4157. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11916246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ClearSy: Atelier B: B System (2014). http://clearsy.com/
  10. 10.
    Dong, J.S., Sun, J., Wang, H.: Z approach to semantic web. In: George, C., Miao, H. (eds.) ICFEM 2002. LNCS, vol. 2495, pp. 156–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36103-0_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gnaho, C., Semmak, F., Laleau, R.: Modeling the impact of non-functional requirements on functional requirements. In: Parsons, J., Chiu, D. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8697, pp. 59–67. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14139-8_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoang, T.S., Butler, M., Reichl, K.: The Hybrid ERTMS/ETCS Level 3 Case Study, pp. 1–3. ABZ (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    JetBrains: JetBrains MPS (2017). https://www.jetbrains.com/mps/
  14. 14.
    Laleau, R., Mammar, A.: An overview of a method and its support tool for generating B specifications from UML notations, pp. 269–272. ICS (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering - From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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. LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 325–339. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matoussi, A., Gervais, F., Laleau, R.: A goal-based approach to guide the design of an abstract Event-B specification. In: ICECCS 2011, pp. 139–148. IEEE Computer Society (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    OpenFlexo: OpenFlexo project (2015). http://www.openflexo.org
  19. 19.
    Pierra, G.: The PLIB ontology-based approach to data integration. In: Jacquart, R. (ed.) Building the Information Society. IIFIP, vol. 156, pp. 13–18. Springer, Boston, MA (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8157-6_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Project, D.: Rodin Atelier B Provers Plug-in (2017). https://www3.hhu.de/stups/handbook/rodin/current/html/atelier_b_provers.html
  21. 21.
    Sengupta, K., Hitzler, P.: Web ontology language (OWL). In: Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining, pp. 2374–2378 (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Snook, C., Butler, M.: UML-B: formal modeling and design aided by UML. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 15(1), 92–122 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    SYSTEREL: Rodin SMT Solvers Plug-in (2017). http://wiki.event-b.org/index.php/SMT_Solvers_Plug-in
  24. 24.
    Tueno, S., Laleau, R., Mammar, A., Frappier, M.: Towards using ontologies for domain modeling within the SysML/KAOS approach. In: 25th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference on IEEE Proceedings of MoDRE Workshop (2017)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tueno, S., Laleau, R., Mammar, A., Frappier, M.: Event-B Specification of Translation Rules (2017). https://github.com/stuenofotso/SysML_KAOS_Domain_Model_Parser/tree/master/SysMLKAOSDomainModelRules
  26. 26.
    Tueno, S., Laleau, R., Mammar, A., Frappier, M.: Formal Representation of SysML/KAOS Domain Models. ArXiv e-prints, cs.SE, 1712.07406, December 2017Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tueno, S., Laleau, R., Mammar, A., Frappier, M.: The SysML/KAOS Domain Modeling Approach. ArXiv e-prints, cs.SE, 1710.00903, September 2017Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tueno, S., Laleau, R., Mammar, A., Frappier, M.: The SysML/KAOS Domain Modeling Language (Tool and Case Studies) (2017). https://github.com/stuenofotso/SysML_KAOS_Domain_Model_Parser/tree/master
  29. 29.
    Wang, H.H., Damljanovic, D., Sun, J.: Enhanced semantic access to formal software models. In: Dong, J.S., Zhu, H. (eds.) ICFEM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6447, pp. 237–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16901-4_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steve Jeffrey Tueno Fotso
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Amel Mammar
    • 2
  • Régine Laleau
    • 1
  • Marc Frappier
    • 3
  1. 1.Université Paris-Est Créteil, LACLCréteilFrance
  2. 2.Télécom SudParis, SAMOVAR-CNRSEvryFrance
  3. 3.Université de Sherbrooke, GRILQuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options