Language Independent Refinement Using Partial Modeling

  • Rick Salay
  • Michalis Famelis
  • Marsha Chechik
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7212)


Models express not only information about their intended domain but also about the way in which the model is incomplete, or “partial”. This partiality supports the modeling process because it permits the expression of what is known without premature decisions about what is still unknown, until later refinements can fill in this information. A key observation of this paper is that a number of partiality types can be defined in a modeling language-independent way, and we propose a formal framework for doing so. In particular, we identify four types of partiality and show how to extend a modeling language to support their expression and refinement. This systematic approach provides a basis for reasoning as well as a framework for generic tooling support. We illustrate the framework by enhancing the UML class diagram and sequence diagram languages with partiality support and using Alloy to automate reasoning tasks.


Modeling Language Class Diagram Partial Model Sequence Diagram First Order Logic 
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.


  1. 1.
    Cortés-Calabuig, A., Denecker, M., Arieli, O.: On the Local Closed-World Assumption of Data-Sources. J. Logic Programming (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fagin, R., Kolaitis, P., Miller, R., Popa, L.: Data Exchange: Semantics and Query Answering. Theoretical Computer Science 336(1), 89–124 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Famelis, M., Ben-David, S., Chechik, M., Salay, R.: Partial Models: A Position Paper. In: Proc. of MoDeVVa 2011, pp. 1–6 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Famelis, M., Salay, R., Chechik, M.: Partial Models: Towards Modeling and Reasoning with Uncertainty (2011) (submitted)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goguen, J.A., Burstall, R.M.: Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 39(1), 95–146 (1992)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haugen, O., Husa, K.E., Runde, R.K., Stolen, K.: STAIRS: Towards Formal Design with Sequence Diagrams. SoSyM 4(4), 355–357 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herrmann, T.: Systems Design with the Socio-Technical Walkthrough. In: Hndbk of Research on Socio-Technical Design and Social Networking Systems, pp. 336–351 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. MIT Press (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larsen, K.G., Thomsen, B.: A Modal Process Logic. In: Proc. of LICS 1988, pp. 203–210 (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larsen, P.: The Expressive Power of Implicit Specifications. In: Leach Albert, J., Monien, B., Rodríguez-Artalejo, M. (eds.) ICALP 1991. LNCS, vol. 510, pp. 204–216. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sannella, D., Tarlecki, A.: Essential Concepts of Algebraic Specification and Program Development. Formal Aspects of Computing 9(3), 229–269 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Uchitel, S., Chechik, M.: Merging Partial Behavioural Models. In: FSE 2004, pp. 43–52 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wei, O., Gurfinkel, A., Chechik, M.: On the Consistency, Expressiveness, and Precision of Partial Modeling Formalisms. J. Inf. Comput. 209(1), 20–47 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rick Salay
    • 1
  • Michalis Famelis
    • 1
  • Marsha Chechik
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations