An Abstract, on the Fly Framework for the Verification of Service-Oriented Systems

  • Stefania Gnesi
  • Franco Mazzanti
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6582)


In this chapter we present (some of) the design principles which have inspired the development of the CMC/UMC verification framework. The first of these is the need of an abstraction mechanism which allows to observe a model in terms of an abstract L 2 TS, therefore hiding all the unnecessary underlying details of the concrete computational model, while revealing only the details which might be important to understand the system behavior. The second of these is the need a Service-Oriented Logic (SocL ) which is an event and state based, branching-time, efficiently verifiable, parametric temporal logic, for the formal encoding of service-oriented properties. The third principle is the usefulness of an on-the-fly, bounded model-checking approach for an efficient, interactive analysis of service-oriented systems which starts from the early stages of the incremental system design.


Model Check Atomic Proposition Label Transition System Observable Action Variable Binder 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bhat, G., Cleaveland, R., Grumberg, O.: Efficient on-the-fly model checking for CTL*. In: LICS, pp. 388–397. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., 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
  3. 3.
    Clarke, E., Emerson, E.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching-time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1981. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Nicola, R., Vaandrager, F.: Action versus state based logics for transition systems. In: Guessarian, I. (ed.) LITP 1990. LNCS, vol. 469, pp. 407–419. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Nicola, R., Vaandrager, F.: Three logics for branching bisimulation. J. ACM 42(2), 458–487 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Lapadula, A., Mazzanti, F., Pugliese, R., Tiezzi, F.: A model checking approach for verifying COWS specifications. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Inverardi, P. (eds.) FASE 2008. LNCS, vol. 4961, pp. 230–245. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: On the fly model checking of communicating UML state machines. In: Proc. of SERA 2004, pp. 331–338. ACIS (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: A model checking verification environment for UML statecharts. In: Proc. of XLIII Annual Italian Conference AICA. AICA (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    OMG (Object Management Group). Unified Modeling Language,
  10. 10.
    Hennessy, M., Milner, R.: Algebraic laws for nondeterminism and concurrency. J. ACM 32(1), 137–161 (1985)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koch, N., et al.: Relations among case studies and theme 3 results. SENSORIA Deliverable D8.7 (section: credit portal) (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koch, N., Mayer, P., Heckel, R., Gönczy, L., Montangero, C.: UML for Service-Oriented Systems, Sensoria deliverable D1.4a (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lapadula, A., Pugliese, R., Tiezzi, F.: A Calculus for Orchestration of Web Services (full version). Technical report, Dipartimento di Sistemi e Informatica, Univ. Firenze (2007),
  14. 14.
    Lapadula, A., Pugliese, R., Tiezzi, F.: A calculus for orchestration of web services. Technical Report, DSI, Università di Firenze (2008),; An extended abstract appeared in De Nicola, R. (ed.): ESOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4421, pp. 33–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
  15. 15.
    Mayer, P., Schroeder, A., Koch, N.: Mdd4soa: Model-driven service orchestration. In: EDOC, pp. 203–212. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mazzanti, F.: UMC User Guide v3.3. Technical report, Technical Report 2006-TR-33, Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell’Informazione “A. Faedo”, CNR (2006),
  17. 17.
    Mazzanti, F.: Designing uml models with umc. Technical report, Technical Report 2009-TR-43, Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell’Informazione “A. Faedo”, CNR (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meolic, R., Kapus, T., Brezocnik, Z.: ACTLW - an action-based computation tree logic with unless operator. Elsevier Information Sciences 178(6), 1542–1557 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ter Beek, M., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F.: An action/state-based model-checking approach for the analysis of communication protocols for service-oriented applications. In: Leue, S., Merino, P. (eds.) FMICS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4916, pp. 133–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ter Beek, M., Gnesi, S., Koch, N., Mazzanti, F.: Formal verification of an automotive scenario in service-oriented computing. In: Proc. of ICSE 2008, pp. 613–622. ACM Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ter Beek, M., Gnesi, S., Mazzanti, F., Moiso, C.: Formal modelling and verification of an asynchronous extension of soap. In: Proc. of ECOWS 2006, pp. 287–296. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ter Beek, M., Mazzanti, F., Gnesi, S.: Cmc-umc: A framework for the verification of abstract service-oriented properties. In: Proc. of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2009), pp. 2111–2117. ACM Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefania Gnesi
    • 1
  • Franco Mazzanti
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologia dell’Informazione “A. Faedo” - CNRItaly

Personalised recommendations