Shape and Content

A Database-Theoretic Perspective on the Analysis of Data Structures
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8739)


The verification community has studied dynamic data structures primarily in a bottom-up way by analyzing pointers and the shapes induced by them. Recent work in fields such as separation logic has made significant progress in extracting shapes from program source code. Many real world programs however manipulate complex data whose structure and content is most naturally described by formalisms from object oriented programming and databases. In this paper, we look at the verification of programs with dynamic data structures from the perspective of content representation. Our approach is based on description logic, a widely used knowledge representation paradigm which gives a logical underpinning for diverse modeling frameworks such as UML and ER. Technically, we assume that we have separation logic shape invariants obtained from a shape analysis tool, and requirements on the program data in terms of description logic. We show that the two-variable fragment of first order logic with counting and trees can be used as a joint framework to embed suitable fragments of description logic and separation logic.


Description Logic Content Representation Memory Structure Full Version Relation Symbol 
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.
    Apel, S., Beyer, D., Friedberger, K., Raimondi, F., von Rhein, A.: Domain types: Abstract-domain selection based on variable usage. In: Bertacco, V., Legay, A. (eds.) HVC 2013. LNCS, vol. 8244, pp. 262–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artale, A., Calvanese, D., Kontchakov, R., Ryzhikov, V., Zakharyaschev, M.: Reasoning over extended ER models. In: Parent, C., Schewe, K.-D., Storey, V.C., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER 2007. LNCS, vol. 4801, pp. 277–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge University Press (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Zarrieß, B.: Verification of golog programs over description logic actions. In: Fontaine, P., Ringeissen, C., Schmidt, R.A. (eds.) FroCoS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8152, pp. 181–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Banerjee, A., Naumann, D.A., Rosenberg, S.: Local reasoning for global invariants, part I: Region logic. J. ACM 60(3), 18 (2013)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artificial Intelligence 168(1-2), 70–118 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berdine, J., Calcagno, C., O’Hearn, P.W.: Symbolic Execution with Separation Logic. In: Yi, K. (ed.) APLAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3780, pp. 52–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borgida, A.: On the relative expressiveness of description logics and predicate logics. Artif. Intell. 82(1-2), 353–367 (1996)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calvanese, D., Ortiz, M., Šimkus, M.: Evolving graph databases under description logic constraints. In: Proc. of DL, pp. 120–131 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Charatonik, W., Witkowski, P.: Two-variable logic with counting and trees. In: LICS, pp. 73–82 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chin, W., David, C., Nguyen, H.H., Qin, S.: Enhancing modular oo verification with separation logic. In: POPL, pp. 87–99. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Demyanova, Y., Veith, H., Zuleger, F.: On the concept of variable roles and its use in software analysis. In: FMCAD, pp. 226–230 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Georgieva, L., Maier, P.: Description Logics for shape analysis. In: SEFM, pp. 321–331 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Giacomo, G., Lespérance, Y., Patrizi, F.: Bounded situation calculus action theories and decidable verification. In: Proc. of KR (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hawkins, P., Aiken, A., Fisher, K., Rinard, M., Sagiv, M.: Data structure fusion. In: Ueda, K. (ed.) APLAS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6461, pp. 204–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holík, L., Lengál, O., Rogalewicz, A., Šimáček, J., Vojnar, T.: Fully automated shape analysis based on forest automata. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 740–755. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ishtiaq, S.S., O’Hearn, P.W.: Bi as an assertion language for mutable data structures. In: POPL, pp. 14–26. ACM (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    James, D., Leonard, T., O’Leary, J., Talupur, M., Tuttle, M.R.: Extracting models from design documents with mapster. In: PODC (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kotek, T., Simkus, M., Veith, H., Zuleger, F.: Extending alcqio with reachability. CoRR, abs/1402.6804 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lutz, C., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: Temporal description logics: A survey. In: Proc. of TIME. IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Madhusudan, P., Parlato, G., Qiu, X.: Decidable logics combining heap structures and data. In: POPL, pp. 611–622. ACM, USA (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    W3C OWL Working Group. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Document Overview. W3C Recommendation (October 27, 2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parkinson, M.J., Bierman, G.M.: Separation logic, abstraction and inheritance. SIGPLAN Not. 43(1), 75–86 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reynolds, J.C.: Separation Logic: A logic for shared mutable data structures. In: Proc. of LICS, pp. 55–74. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yorsh, G., Reps, T., Sagiv, M.: Symbolically computing most-precise abstract operations for shape analysis. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 530–545. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Free University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly
  2. 2.Vienna University of TechnologyWienAustria

Personalised recommendations