Properties of Behavioural Model Merging

  • Greg Brunet
  • Marsha Chechik
  • Sebastian Uchitel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4085)


Constructing comprehensive operational models of intended system behaviour is a complex and costly task. Consequently, practitioners adopt techniques that support partial behaviour decription such as scenario-based specifications, and focus on elaborating these descriptions iteratively. In previous work, we show how this process can be formally supported by Modal Transition Systems (MTSs), observational refinement, and model merging. In this paper, we study a number of properties of merging MTSs and give insights on the implications these results have on engineering and reasoning about behaviour models. We illustrate the utility of our results on a case study.


Model Check Behavioural Model Algebraic Property Parallel Composition Label Transition System 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ball, T., Levin, V., Xie, F.: Automatic Creation of Environment Models via Training. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 93–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boem, B., Turner, R.: Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed. Person Education (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brunet, G.: A Characterization of Merging Partial Behavioural Models. Master’s thesis, University of Toronto, Department of Computer Science (January 2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruns, G., Godefroid, P.: Model Checking Partial State Spaces with 3-Valued Temporal Logics. In: Halbwachs, N., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 1999. LNCS, vol. 1633, pp. 274–287. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chechik, M., Devereux, B., Easterbrook, S., Gurfinkel, A.: Multi-Valued Symbolic Model-Checking. ACM TOSEM 12(4), 1–38 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    CREWS. Cooperative Requirements Engineering With Scenarios (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Damm, W., Harel, D.: LSCs: Breathing Life into Message Sequence Charts. FMSD 19(1), 45–80 (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dams, D., Gerth, R., Grumberg, O.: Abstract Interpretation of Reactive Systems. ACM TOPLAS 2(19), 253–291 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Easterbrook, S., Chechik, M.: A Framework for Multi-Valued Reasoning over Inconsistent Viewpoints. In: ICSE 2001, pp. 411–420 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giannakopoulou, D., Magee, J.: Fluent Model Checking for Event-Based Systems. In: ESEC/FSE 2003, pp. 257–266 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horwitz, S., Prins, J., Reps, T.: Integrating Noninterfering Versions of Programs. ACM TOPLAS 11(3), 345–387 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hunter, A., Nuseibeh, B.: Managing Inconsistent Specifications: Reasoning, Analysis and Action. ACM TOSEM 7(4), 335–367 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hussain, A., Huth, M.: On Model Checking Multiple Hybrid Views. In: 1st Int. Symp. on Leveraging Applications of FMs, pp. 235–242 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huth, M., Jagadeesan, R., Schmidt, D.: A Domain Equation for Refinement of Partial Systems (submitted, 2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huth, M., Jagadeesan, R., Schmidt, D.A.: Modal Transition Systems: A Foundation for Three-Valued Program Analysis. In: Sands, D. (ed.) ESOP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2028, pp. 155–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keller, R.: Formal Verification of Parallel Programs. Communications of the ACM 19(7), 371–384 (1976)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kozen, D.: Results on the Propositional μ-calculus. TCS 27, 334–354 (1983)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kramer, J., Magee, J., Sloman, M.: CONIC: an Integrated Approach to Distributed Computer Control Systems. IEE Proceedings 130(1), 1–10 (1983)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Larsen, K., Xinxin, L.: Equation Solving Using Modal Transition Systems. In: LICS 1990, pp. 108–117 (1990)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Larsen, K.G., Steffen, B., Weise, C.: A Constraint Oriented Proof Methodology based on Modal Transition Systems. In: Brinksma, E., Steffen, B., Cleaveland, W.R., Larsen, K.G., Margaria, T. (eds.) TACAS 1995. LNCS, vol. 1019, pp. 13–28. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Larsen, K.G., Thomsen, B.: A Modal Process Logic. In: LICS 1988, pp. 203–210 (1988)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Concurrency - State Models and Java Programs. John Wiley, Chichester (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, New York (1989)MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sabetzadeh, M., Easterbrook, S.M.: Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints: A Category-Theoretic Approach. In: ASE 2003, pp. 12–21 (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shoham, S., Grumberg, O.: Monotonic Abstraction-Refinement for CTL. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 546–560. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stirling, C.: Modal and Temporal Logics for Processes. In: VIII Banff Conf. on Logics for Concurrency: Structure Versus Automata, pp. 149–237 (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Uchitel, S., Chechik, M.: Merging Partial Behavioural Models. In: FSE 2004, pp. 43–52 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Behaviour Model Elaboration using Partial Labelled Transition Systems. In: ESEC/FSE 2003, pp. 19–27 (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Whittle, J., Schumann, J.: Generating Statechart Designs from Scenarios. In: ICSE 2000, pp. 314–323 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Greg Brunet
    • 1
  • Marsha Chechik
    • 1
  • Sebastian Uchitel
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of ComputingImperial CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations