Advertisement

Viewpoint consistency in Z and LOTOS: A case study

  • Eerke Boiten
  • Howard Bowman
  • John Derrick
  • Maarten Steen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1313)

Abstract

Specification by viewpoints is advocated as a suitable method of specifying complex systems. Each viewpoint describes the envisaged system from a particular perspective, using concepts and specification languages best suited for that perspective.

Inherent in any viewpoint approach is the need to check or manage the consistency of viewpoints and to show that the different viewpoints do not impose contradictory requirements. In previous work we have described a range of techniques for consistency checking, refinement, and translation between viewpoint specifications, in particular for the languages LOTOS and Z. These two languages are advocated in a particular viewpoint model, viz. that of the Open Distributed Processing (ODP) reference model. In this paper we present a case study which demonstrates how all these techniques can be combined in order to show consistency between a viewpoint specified in LOTOS and one specified in Z.

Keywords

Viewpoints Consistency LOTOS ODP 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. Ainsworth, A. H. Cruickshank, P. J. L. Wallis, and L. J. Groves. Viewpoint specification and Z. Information and Software Technology, 36(1):43–51, February 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Ainsworth, S. Riddle, and P.J.L. Wallis. Formal validation of viewpoint specifications. Software Engineering Journal, 11(1):58–66, January 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Boiten, J. Derrick, H. Bowman, and M. Steen. Consistency and refinement for partial specification in Z. In Gaudel and Woodcock [16], pages 287–306.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Bowman, E.A. Boiten, J. Derrick, and M. Steen. Viewpoint consistency in ODP, a general interpretation. In E. Najm and J.-B. Stefani, editors, First IFIP International workshop on Formal Methods for Open Object-based Distributed Systems, pages 189–204, Paris, March 1996. Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Bowman, E.A. Boiten, J. Derrick, and M. Steen. A formal theory of viewpoint consistency. Submitted for publication, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Bowman, J. Derrick, and M. Steen. Some results on cross viewpoint consistency checking. In K. Raymond and L. Armstrong, editors, IFIP TC6 International Conference on Open Distributed Processing, pages 399–412, Brisbane, Australia, February 1995. Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Brinksma, G. Scollo, and C. Steenbergen. Process specification, their implementation and their tests. In B. Sarikaya and G. v. Bochmann, editors, Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, VI, pages 349–360, Montreal, Canada, June 1986. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Cusack and G. H. B. Rafsanjani. ZEST. In S. Stepney, R. Barden, and D. Cooper, editors, Object Orientation in Z, Workshops in Computing, pages 113–126. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H.S. Delugach. An approach to conceptual feedback in multiple viewed software requirements modeling. In Finkelstein and Spanoudakis [14], pages 242–246.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Derrick, E.A. Boiten, H. Bowman, and M. Steen. Weak refinement in Z. In J.P. Botnen, M.G. Hinchey, and D.Till, editors, ZUM '97: The Z Formal Specification Notation, volume 1212 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 369–388. Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Derrick, H. Bowman, E. Boiten, and M. Steen. Comparing LOTOS and Z refinement relations. In FORTE/PSTV'96, pages 501–516, Kaiserslautern, Germany, October 1996. Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Derrick, H. Bowman, and M. Steen. Maintaining cross viewpoint consistency using Z. In K. Raymond and L. Armstrong, editors, IFIP TC6 International Conference on Open Distributed Processing, pages 413–424, Brisbane, Australia, February 1995. Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Derrick, E.A.Boiten, H. Bowman, and M. Steen. Supporting ODP — translating LOTOS to Z. In E. Najm and J.-B. Stefani, editors, First IFIP International workshop on Formal Methods for Open Object-based Distributed Systems, pages 399–406, Paris, March 1996. Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Finkelstein and G. Spanoudakis, editors. SIGSOFT '96 International Workshop on Multiple Perspectives in Software Development (Viewpoints '96). ACM, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Frappier, A. Mili, and J. Desharnais. Program construction by parts. In B. Möller, editor, Mathematics of Program Construction: Third International Conference, volume 947 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 257–281. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M.-C. Gaudel and J. Woodcock, editors. FME'96: Industrial Benefit of Formal Methods, Third International Symposium of Formal Methods Europe, volume 1051 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, March 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    I. Hayes, M. Mowbray, and G.A. Rose. Signalling system no. 7 — the network layer. In PSTV IX, pages 3–14, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M.G. Hinchey. JSD, CSP and TLZ. In Methods Integration Workshop, Leeds, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ITU Recommendation X.901-904 — ISO/IEC 10746 1-4. Open Distributed Processing — Reference Model — Parts 1–4, July 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Jackson. Structuring Z specifications with views. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 4(4), October 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    V. Kasurinen and K. Sere. Integrating action systems and Z in a medical system specification. In Gaudel and Woodcock [16], pages 105–119.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    G. Leduc. On the Role of Implementation Relations in the Design of Distributed Systems using LOTOS. PhD thesis, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium, June 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    F. Polack and K. C. Mander. Software quality assurance using the SAZ method. In J. P. Bowen and J. A. Hall, editors, Z User Workshop, Cambridge 1994, Workshops in Computing, pages 230–249. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Ronayne. The Integrated Services Digital Network: from concept to application. Pitman, London, 1987.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. M. Spivey. The Z notation: A reference manual. Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. W. A. Steen, H. Bowman, and J. Derrick. Composition of LOTOS specifications. In P. Dembinski and M. Sredniawa, editors, Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, XV, pages 73–88, Warsaw, Poland, 1995. Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    B. Strulo. How firing conditions help inheritance. In J. P. Bowen and M. G. Hinchey, editors, Ninth Annual Z User Workshop, LNCS 967, pages 264–275, Limerick, September 1995. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    R.J. van Glabbeek. The refinement theorem for ST-bisimulation semantics. In Programming Concepts and Methods. Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    M. Weber. Combining statecharts and Z for the design of safety-critical control systems. In Gaudel and Woodcock [16], pages 307–326.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. Woodcock and J. Davies. Using Z: Specification, Refinement, and Proof. Prentice Hall, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eerke Boiten
    • 1
  • Howard Bowman
    • 1
  • John Derrick
    • 1
  • Maarten Steen
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing LaboratoryUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations