Advertisement

From Conditional Specifications to Interaction Charts

A Journey from Formal to Visual Means to Model Behaviour
  • Egidio Astesiano
  • Gianna Reggio
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3393)

Abstract

In this paper, addressing the classical problem of modelling the behaviour of a system, we present a paradigmatic journey from purely formal and textual techniques to derived visual notations, with a further attention first to code generation and finally to the incorporation into a standard notation such as the UML.

We show how starting from Casl positive conditional specifications with initial semantics of labelled transition systems, we can devise a new visual paradigm, the interaction charts, which are diagrams able to express both reactive and proactive/autonomous behaviour.

Then, we introduce the executable interaction charts, which are interaction charts with a special semantics, by which we try to ease the passage to code generation.

Finally, we present the interaction machines, which are essentially executable interaction charts in a notation that can be easily incorporated, as an extension, into the UML.

Keywords

design of visual notations formal notations behaviour modelling/specification CASL UML interaction charts 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Astesiano, E., Giovini, A., Mazzanti, F., Reggio, G., Zucca, E.: The Ada Challenge for New Formal Semantic Techniques. In: Proc. of the Ada-Europe International Conference on Ada: Managing the Transition, Edimburgh, pp. 239–248. University Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Astesiano, E., Reggio, G.: Formalism and Method. In: Bidoit, M., Dauchet, M. (eds.) CAAP 1997, FASE 1997, and TAPSOFT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1214, pp. 93–114. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Astesiano, E., Reggio, G.: Formalism and Method. T.C.S 236(1,2), 3–34 (2000)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Astesiano, E., Reggio, G.: Labelled Transition Logic: An Outline. Acta Informatica 37(11-12), 831–879 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Astesiano, E., Reggio, G., Cerioli, M.: From Formal Techniques toWell-Founded Software Development Methods. In: Aichernig, B.K., Maibaum, T. (eds.) Formal Methods at the Crossroads. From Panacea to Foundational Support. LNCS, vol. 2757, pp. 132–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bidoit, M., Mosses, P.D.: CASL User Manual, Introduction to Using the Common Algebraic Specification Language. In: Bidoit, M., Mosses, P.D. (eds.) CASL User Manual. LNCS, vol. 2900. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choppy, C., Reggio, G.: Towards a Formally Grounded Software Development Method. Technical Report DISI–TR–03–35, DISI, Università di Genova, Italy (2003), Available at ftp://ftp.disi.unige.it/person/ReggioG/ChoppyReggio03a.pdf
  8. 8.
    Coscia, E., Reggio, G.: JTN: A Java-targeted Graphic Formal Notation for Reactive and Concurrent Systems. In: Finance, J.-P. (ed.) FASE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1577, pp. 77–97. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Costa, G., Reggio, G.: Specification of Abstract Dynamic Data Types: A Temporal Logic Approach. T.C.S. 173(2), 513–554 (1997)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ehrig, H., Mahr, B.: A Decade of TAPSOFT: Aspects of Progress and Prospects in Theory and Practice of Software Development. In: Mosses, P.D., Schwartzbach, M.I., Nielsen, M. (eds.) CAAP 1995, FASE 1995, and TAPSOFT 1995. LNCS, vol. 915, pp. 3–24. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milner, R.: A Calculus of Communication Systems. LNCS, vol. 92. Springer, Berlin (1980)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mosses, P.D. (ed.): CASL Reference Manual. LNCS, vol. 2960. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG. UML Specification 1.3 (2000), Available at http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/00-03-01.pdf
  14. 14.
    OMG. UML 2.0 OCL Specification (2003) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    OMG. UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification (2003) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Plotkin, G.: An Operational Semantics for CSP. In: Bjorner, D. (ed.) Proc. IFIP TC 2-Working conference: Formal description of programming concepts. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1983)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reggio, G., Astesiano, E., Choppy, C.: Casl-Ltl: A Casl Extension for Dynamic Reactive Systems Version 1.0– Summary. Technical Report DISI-TR-03-36, DISI – Università di Genova, Italy (2003), Available at ftp://ftp.disi.unige.it/person/ReggioG/ReggioEtAll03b.ps
  18. 18.
    Reggio, G., Astesiano, E., Choppy, C., Hussmann, H.: Analysing UML Active Classes and Associated State Machines – A Lightweight Formal Approach. In: Maibaum, T. (ed.) FASE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1783, p. 127. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reggio, G., Cerioli, M., Astesiano, E.: Towards a Rigorous Semantics of UML Supporting its Multiview Approach. In: Hussmann, H. (ed.) FASE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2029, p. 171. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reggio, G., Larosa, M.: A Graphic Notation for Formal Specifications of Dynamic Systems. In: Fitzgerald, J., Jones, C.B. (eds.) FME 1997. LNCS, vol. 1313. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Egidio Astesiano
    • 1
  • Gianna Reggio
    • 1
  1. 1.DISIUniversità di GenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations