Application of Stuck-Free Conformance to Service-Role Composition

  • Fritjof Boger Engelhardtsen
  • Andreas Prinz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4320)


We use SDL and UML 2.0 state machines for behavior modeling of communication control software for telecommunication services. To ensure consistent designs we want to identify when a signal sent is not consumed and when a state machine waits indefinitely for a signal that never arrives. One approach to ensure such consistency is to derive interface contracts for each port from the properties of the state machine and use the contracts to check consistency. In this paper we describe how Calculus for Communicating Systems (CCS) [1] and stuck-free conformance [2] can be used as a formal fundament for this consistency checking. Interface descriptions should be comprehensible without having to learn process algebra. Therefore we introduce a graphical notation for both the port contracts and for the interaction made possible across the interface of two state machines.


State Machine Queue Length Design Constraint Transition Graph Process Algebra 
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.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River (1989)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fournet, C., Hoare, C.A.R., Rajamani, S.K., Rehof, J.: Stuck-free conformance. In: Alur, R., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 2004. LNCS, vol. 3114, pp. 242–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Floch, J., Bræk, R.: Using Projections for the Detection of Anomalous Behaviors. In: Reed, R., Reed, J. (eds.) SDL 2003. LNCS, vol. 2708, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Floch, J.: Towards Plug-and-Play Services: Design and Validation using Roles. Doctoral dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Physics, Informatics and Mathematics, Department of Telematics, Trondheim (February 2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rößler, F., Geppert, B., Gotzhein, R.: CoSDL - an experimental language for collaboration specification. In: Sherratt, E. (ed.) SAM 2002. LNCS, vol. 2599, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bræk, R.: Using Roles with Types and Objects for Service Development. In: Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Intelligence in Networks (Smartnet 1999), Bangkok, November 1999. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rößler, F., Geppert, B., Gotzhein, R.: Collaboration-Based Design of SDL Systems. In: Reed, R., Reed, J. (eds.) SDL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2078, p. 72. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bræk, R., Floch, J.: ICT convergence: Modeling issues. In: Amyot, D., Williams, A.W. (eds.) SAM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3319, pp. 237–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schneider, H.-A., Taubner, D.: Process Algebra Techniques for Verification of SDL-Diagrams. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Engineering for Telecommunication Systems and Services, Florence, Italy, March/April 1992, vol. 1992, pp. 107–111 (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moller, F., Stevens, P.: Edinburgh Concurrency Workbench user manual (version 7.1), Available from
  11. 11.
    Luo, G., Das, A., Bochmann, G.V.: Software Testing Based on SDL Specifications with Save. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20(1), 72–87 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chechik, M., Wang, H.: Bisimulation Analysis of SDL-Expressed Protocols: a Case Study. In: CASCON 2000: Proceedings of the 2000 conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative research, p. 2. IBM Press (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sanders, R.T., Floch, J., Bræk, R.: Dynamic Behaviour Arbitration using Role Negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 9th Open European Summer School and IFIP WG6.3 Workshop on Next Generation Networks (EUNICE 2003), Balatonfüred, Hungary, November 8th-10th (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sanders, R.T., Castejón, H.N., Kraemer, F.A., Bræk, R.: Using UML 2.0 Collaborations for Compositional Service Specification. In: Briand, L.C., Williams, C. (eds.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3713, pp. 460–475. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Selinger, P.: First-Order Axioms for Asynchrony. In: Mazurkiewicz, A., Winkowski, J. (eds.) CONCUR 1997. LNCS, vol. 1243, pp. 376–390. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fritjof Boger Engelhardtsen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andreas Prinz
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and Science, Dep. of Information and Communication TechnologyAgder University CollegeGrimstadNorway
  2. 2.Faculty of Information Technology, Mathematics and Electrical Engineering, Dep. of TelematicsNorwegian University of science and technologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations