Advertisement

Using a logical and categorical approach for the validation of fault-tolerant systems

  • C. Seguin
  • V. Wiels
Session 5: Distributed Systems (1)
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1051)

Abstract

We propose a categorical and logical formalism and apply it in order to compositionally specify and verify the fault-tolerance mechanisms of the Modulor system. We claim that our approach is well-suited to the validation of real-sized critical systems.

Keywords

Linear Temporal Logic Phase Process Parallel Composition Dynamic Logic Local Detection 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Bundy, F. van Harmelen, J. Hesketh, and A. Smaill. Experiments with proof plans for induction. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 7:303–324, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K.M. Chandy and J. Misra. Parallel Program Design. A Foundation. Addison-Wesley, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Cleaveland, J. Parrow, and B. Steffen. The concurrency workbench. In proceedings of the workshop on automatic verification methods for finite-state systems, LNCS 407, pages 24–37, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    V. David, Ch. Fraboul, J.Y. Rousselot, and P. Siron. Partitioning and mapping communication graphs on a modular reconfigurable parallel architecture. In CON-PAR'92, Sept 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Allen Emerson. Temporal and modal logic. In Handbook of theoretical computer science, pages 996–1071. Elsevier Science, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Fiadeiro and T. Maibaum. Temporal theories as modularisation units for concurrent system specification. Formal Aspects of Computing, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Harel. Handbook of philosophical logic, volume 2, chapter 10, Dynamic Logic, pages 497–604. 1984.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C.A.R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Kozen. Results on the propositional mu-calculus. Theoritical Computer Science, 27:333–354, 1983.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Lamport. The temporal logic of actions. Technical Report 79, SRC, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zohar Manna and Amir Pnueli. The temporal logic of reactive and concurrent systems. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robin Milner. Handbook of theoretical computer science, chapter 19, Operational and algebraic semantics of concurrent processes, pages 1203–1242. Elsevier Science, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Pagani, C. Seguin, P. Siron, and V. Wiels. Verification experiments on a large fault-tolerant distributed system. In Workshop AMAST “Model and Proof”, Bordeaux, France, juin 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    John Rushby. Formal specification and verification of a fault-masking and transient-recovery model for digital flight-control systems. In J. Vytopil, editor, Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems, number 571 in LNC-S, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, January 1992. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D.E. Rydeheard and R.M. Burstall. Computational Category Theory. Prentice Hall, 1988.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Sauloy. Interconnexion de modules. Technical report, CERT-ONERA, DERI, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    V. Wiels. Specification et verification de programmes paralleles tolerants aux fautes. Master's thesis, E.N.S.E.E.I.H.T, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Seguin
    • 1
  • V. Wiels
    • 1
  1. 1.CERT-ONERAToulouse cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations