Advertisement

Comparison of Model Checking Tools for Information Systems

  • Marc Frappier
  • Benoît Fraikin
  • Romain Chossart
  • Raphaël Chane-Yack-Fa
  • Mohammed Ouenzar
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6447)

Abstract

This paper compares six model checkers (Alloy, cadp, fdr2, NuSMV, ProB, Spin) for the validation of information system specifications. The same case study (a library system) is specified using each model checker. Fifteen properties of various types are checked using temporal logics (CTL and LTL), first-order logic and failure-divergence (fdr2). Three characteristics are evaluated: ease of specifying information system i) behavior, ii) properties, and iii) the number of IS entity instances that can be checked. The paper then identifies the most suitable features required to validate information systems using a model checker.

Keywords

Business Process Model Checker Information System Label Transition System Liveness Property 
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. 1.
    Abrial, J.R.: The B-Book: Assigning Programs to Meanings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Augusto, J.C., Ferreira, C., Gravell, A.M., Leuschel, M., Ng, K.M.Y.: The benefits of rapid modelling for e-business system development. In: ER Workshops, pp. 17–28 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aydal, E.G., Utting, M., Woodcock, J.: A comparison of state-based modelling tools for model validation. In: TOOLS-Europe 2008, Switzerland. LNBIP, vol. 11, pp. 278–296 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biere, A., Clarke, E.M., Cimatti, A., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without BDDs. In: Cleaveland, W.R. (ed.) TACAS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1579, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bolognesi, T., Brinksma, E.: Introduction to the ISO specification language LOTOS. In: van Eijk, P.H.J., Vissers, C.A., Diaz, M. (eds.) The Formal Description Technique LOTOS, pp. 23–73. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chane-Yack-Fa, R., Fraikin, B., Frappier, M., Chossard, R., Ouenzar, M.: Comparison of model checking tools for information systems. Tech. Rep. 29, Universit de Sherbrooke (2010), http://pages.usherbrooke.ca/gril/TR/TR-GRIL-1006-29.pdf
  7. 7.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Synthesis of synchronization skeletons for branching time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131. Springer, Heidelberg (1981)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deutsch, A., Sui, L., Vianu, V.: Specification and verification of data-driven web applications. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 73(3), 442–474 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Emerson, E.A., Halpern, J.Y.: “Sometimes” and “Not Never” revisited: On branching versus linear time temporal logic. J. ACM 33(1), 151–178 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garavel, H.: Compilation et vrification de programmes LOTOS. Ph.D. thesis, Universit Joseph Fourier, Grenoble (November 1989)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The Spin Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leuschel, M., Butler, M.: ProB: A model checker for B. In: Araki, K., Gnesi, S., Mandrioli, D. (eds.) FME 2003. LNCS, vol. 2805, pp. 855–874. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mateescu, R., Garavel, H.: XTL: A meta-language and tool for temporal logic model-checking. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Tools for Technology Transfer STTT 1998, Aalborg, Denmark, p. 10 (July 1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McMillan, K.L.: Symbolic Model Checking. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morimoto, S.: A survey of formal verification for business process modeling. In: Bubak, M., van Albada, G.D., Dongarra, J., Sloot, P.M.A. (eds.) ICCS 2008, Part II. LNCS, vol. 5102, pp. 514–524. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 46–57 (1977)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roscoe, B.A.W.: The Theory and Practice of Concurrency, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall PTR, Englewood Cliffs (1998) (amended 2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spielmann, M.: Abstract state machines: Verification problems and complexity. Ph.D. thesis, Bibliothek der RWTH Aachen (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yeung, W.L., Leung, K.R.P.H., Wang, J., Dong, W.: Modelling and model checking suspendible business processes via statechart diagrams and CSP. Science of Computer Programming 65(1), 14–29 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Frappier
    • 1
  • Benoît Fraikin
    • 1
  • Romain Chossart
    • 1
  • Raphaël Chane-Yack-Fa
    • 1
  • Mohammed Ouenzar
    • 1
  1. 1.GRILUniversité de SherbrookeCanada

Personalised recommendations