Advertisement

The IF Toolset

  • Marius Bozga
  • Susanne Graf
  • Ileana Ober
  • Iulian Ober
  • Joseph Sifakis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3185)

Abstract

This paper presents an overview on the IF toolset which is an environment for modelling and validation of heterogeneous real-time systems. The toolset is built upon a rich formalism, the IF notation, allowing structured automata-based system representations. Moreover, the IF notation is expressive enough to support real-time primitives and extensions of high-level modelling languages such as SDL and UML by means of structure preserving mappings.

The core part of the IF toolset consists of a syntactic transformation component and an open exploration platform. The syntactic transformation component provides language level access to IF descriptions and has been used to implement static analysis and optimisation techniques. The exploration platform gives access to the graph of possible executions. It has been connected to different state-of-the-art model-checking and test-case generation tools.

A methodology for the use of the toolset is presented at hand of a case study concerning the Ariane-5 Flight Program for which both an SDL and a UML model have been validated.

Keywords

Model Check Safety Property Label Transition System Time Progress Time Automaton 
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. [ABS01]
    Annichini, A., Bouajjani, A., Sighireanu, M.: TReX: A Tool for Reachability Analysis of Complex Systems. In: Berry, G., Comon, H., Finkel, A. (eds.) CAV 2001. LNCS, vol. 2102, p. 368. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [AD94]
    Alur, R., Dill, D.L.: A Theory of Timed Automata. Theoretical Computer Science 126, 183–235 (1994)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [AGS00]
    Altisen, K., Gössler, G., Sifakis, J.: A Methodology for the Construction of Scheduled Systems. In: Joseph, M. (ed.) FTRTFT 2000. LNCS, vol. 1926, pp. 106–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [AGS02]
    Altisen, K., Gössler, G., Sifakis, J.: Scheduler Modeling Based on the Controller Snthesis Paradigm. Journal of Real-Time Systems, special issue on “control-theoretical approaches to real-time computing” 23(1/2), 55–84 (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [BFG+91]
    Bouajjani, A., Fernandez, J.C., Graf, S., Rodriguez, C., Sifakis, J.: Safety for Branching Time Semantics. In: Leach Albert, J., Monien, B., Rodríguez-Artalejo, M. (eds.) ICALP 1991. LNCS, vol. 510, Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  6. [BFG+99]
    Bozga, M., Fernandez, J.C., Ghirvu, L., Graf, S., Krimm, J.P., Mounier, L., Sifakis, J.: IF: An Intermediate Representation for SDL and its Applications. In: Dssouli, R., Bochmann, G., Lahav, Y. (eds.) Proceedings of SDL FORUM 1999, Montreal, Canada, June 1999, pp. 423–440. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
  7. [BFKM97]
    Bozga, M., Fernandez, J.C., Kerbrat, A., Mounier, L.: Protocol Verification with the Aldebaran Toolset. Software Tools for Technology Transfer 1(1+2), 166–183 (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [BL02a]
    Boigelot, B., Latour, L.: The Liege Automata-based Symbolic Handler LASH (2002), http://www.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/boigelot/research/lash
  9. [BL02b]
    Bozga, M., Lakhnech, Y.: IF-2.0: Common Language Operational Semantics. Technical report, Verimag (2002)Google Scholar
  10. [BLO98]
    Bensalem, S., Lakhnech, Y., Owre, S.: Computing Abstractions of Infinite State Systems Compositionally and Automatically. In: Hu, A., Vardi, M. (eds.) CAV 1998. LNCS, vol. 1427, pp. 319–331. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [BS00]
    Bornot, S., Sifakis, J.: An Algebraic Framework for Urgency. Information and Computatio 163, 172–202 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. [BST98]
    Bornot, S., Sifakis, J., Tripakis, S.: Modeling Urgency in Timed Systems. In: de Roever, W.-P., Langmaack, H., Pnueli, A. (eds.) COMPOS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1536, p. 103. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [Con01]
    ADVANCE Consortium, http://www.liafa.jussieu.fr/ advance - website of the IST ADVANCE project (2001)
  14. [Con02]
    AGEDIS Consortium, http://www.agedis.de - website of the IST AGEDIS project (2002)
  15. [Con03]
    OMEGA Consortium, http://www-omega.imag.fr - website of the IST OMEGA project. (2003)
  16. [DH99]
    Damm, W., Harel, D.: LSCs: Breathing Life into Message Sequence Charts. In: Ciancarini, P., Fantechi, A., Gorrieri, R. (eds.) FMOODS 1999 IFIP TC6/WG6.1 Third International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999); Journal Version to appear in Journal on Formal Methods in System Design (July 2001)Google Scholar
  17. [DJPV02]
    Damm, W., Josko, B., Pnueli, A., Votintseva, A.: Understanding UML: A Formal Semantics of Concurrency and Communication in Real-Time UML. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2852, pp. 71–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [DY96]
    Daws, C., Yovine, S.: Reducing the Number of Clock Variables of Timed Automata. In: Proceedings of RTSS 1996, Washington, DC, USA, December 1996, pp. 73–82. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1996)Google Scholar
  19. [FGK+96]
    Fernandez, J.C., Garavel, H., Kerbrat, A., Mateescu, R., Mounier, L., Sighireanu, M.: CADP: A Protocol Validation and Verification Toolbox. In: Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) CAV 1996. LNCS, vol. 1102, pp. 437–440. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  20. [FJJV96]
    Fernandez, J.C., Jard, C., Jéron, T., Viho, C.: Using On-the-fly Verification Techniques for the Generation of Test Suites. In: Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) CAV 1996. LNCS, vol. 1102, Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  21. [GH04]
    Graf, S., Hooman, J.: Correct development of embedded systems. In: Oquendo, F., Warboys, B.C., Morrison, R. (eds.) EWSA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3047, pp. 241–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [GOO03]
    Graf, S., Ober, I., Ober, I.: Timed Annotations in UML. In: Workshop SVERTS on Specification and Validation of UML models for Real Time and Embedded Systems, a satellite event of UML 2003, San Francisco (October 2003), Verimag technical report 2003/10/22 or http://wwwverimag.imag.fr/EVENTS/2003/SVERTS/
  23. [GS03]
    Gössler, G., Sifakis, J.: Composition for Component-Based Modeling. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2852, pp. 443–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [Har87]
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: A Visual Formalism for Complex Systems. Sci. Comput. Programming 8, 231–274 (1987)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. [HN04]
    Hartman, A., Nagin, K.: The AGEDIS Tools for Model Based Testing. In: Proceedings of ISSTA 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  26. [Hol91]
    Holzmann, G.J.: Design and Validation of Computer Protocols. Prentice Hall Software Series (1991)Google Scholar
  27. [HP98]
    Harel, D., Politi, M.: Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach. McGraw-Hill, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  28. [HvdZ03]
    Hooman, J., van der Zwaag, M.B.: A Semantics of Communicating Reactive Objects with Timing. In: Proceedings of SVERTS 2003 (Specification and Validation of UML models for Real Time and Embedded Systems), San Francisco (October 2003)Google Scholar
  29. [IBM]
    IBM. Rational ROSE Development Environment Google Scholar
  30. [Ilo]
    Ilogix. Rhapsody Development EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  31. [JM99]
    Jéron, T., Morel, P.: Test Generation Derived from Model Checking. In: Halbwachs, N., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 1999. LNCS, vol. 1633, pp. 108–122. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [Koz83]
    Kozen, D.: Results on the Propositional μ-Calculus. Theoretical Computer Science (1983)Google Scholar
  33. [LPY98]
    Larsen, K.G., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: UPPAAL in a Nutshell. Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 1, 134–152 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [LRG01]
    Lugato, D., Rapin, N., Gallois, J.P.: Verification and tests generation for SDL industrial specifications with the AGATHA toolset. In: Real-Time Tools Workshop affiliated to CONCUR 2001, Aalborg, Denmark (2001)Google Scholar
  35. [Mil80]
    Milner, R.: A Calculus of Communication Systems. LNCS, vol. 92. Springer, Heidelberg (1980)Google Scholar
  36. [Muc97]
    Muchnick, S.: Advanced Compiler Design Implementation. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1997)Google Scholar
  37. [NS91]
    Nicollin, X., Sifakis, J.: An Overview and Synthesis on Timed Process Algebras. In: Larsen, K.G., Skou, A. (eds.) CAV 1991. LNCS, vol. 575, Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  38. [OGO04]
    Ober, I., Graf, S., Ober, I.: Model Checking of UML Models via a Mapping to Communicating Extended Timed Automata. In: Graf, S., Mounier, L. (eds.) SPIN 2004. LNCS, vol. 2989, pp. 127–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [OMG01]
    OMG. Unified Modeling Language Specification (Action Semantics). OMG Adopted Specification (December 2001)Google Scholar
  40. [OMG03a]
    OMG. Model Driven Architecture (2003), http://www.omg.org/mda
  41. [OMG03b]
    OMG. Standard uml Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time, v. 1.0. OMG document formal/2003-09-01 (September 2003) Google Scholar
  42. [Par81]
    Park, D.: Concurrency and Automata on Infinite Sequences. Theoretical Computer Science 104, 167–183 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [RVR+]
    Ramirez, A., Vanpeperstraete, P., Rueckert, A., Odutola, K., Bennett, J., Tolke, L.: ArgoUML EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  44. [Sif77]
    Sifakis, J.: Use of Petri Nets for Performance Evaluation. In: Proc. 3rd Intl. Symposium on Modeling and Evaluation, pp. 75–93. IFIP, North Holland (1977)Google Scholar
  45. [Sif01]
    Sifakis, J.: Modeling Real-Time Systems — Challenges and Work Directions. In: Henzinger, T.A., Kirsch, C.M. (eds.) EMSOFT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2211, p. 373. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. [STY03]
    Sifakis, J., Tripakis, S., Yovine, S.: Building Models of Real-Time Systems from Application Software. Proc. IEEE 91(1), 100–111 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [Tip94]
    Tip, F.: A Survey of Program Slicing Techniques. Technical Report CSR9438, CWI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1994)Google Scholar
  48. [vGW89]
    van Glabbeek, R.J., Weijland, W.P.: Branching-Time and Abstraction in Bisimulation Semantics. Technical Report CS-R8911, CWI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1989)Google Scholar
  49. [Wei84]
    Weiser, M.: Program Slicing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-10(4), 352–357 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. [Yov97]
    Yovine, S.: KRONOS: A Verification Tool for Real-Time Systems. Software Tools for Technology Transfer 1(1+2), 123–133 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marius Bozga
    • 1
  • Susanne Graf
    • 1
  • Ileana Ober
    • 1
  • Iulian Ober
    • 1
  • Joseph Sifakis
    • 1
  1. 1.VERIMAGGières

Personalised recommendations