Designing and Integrating Complex Systems: Be Agile Through Liveness Verification and Abstraction

Conference paper


Model Driven Architecture (MDA) is recognised as a strong way to develop high-quality systems, and specifically reactive systems. Within MDA, models are in the center of a stepwise development based on extensions, refinements and transformation. Systems Engineering addresses the problem of complex system development in a holistic way, however, there is a lack of tools to verify models from a behavioural point of view at the earlier stage of the development, taking into account that the specifications are evolving during the system development. We propose IDF, a framework for Incremental Development of Compliant Models, which is constituted with a set of relations based on the verification of liveness properties. It is computed on abstract models automatically set up from behavioural specifications of the system or its component. These relations detect non-conformance of models during their evolution (extension or refinement) such as the non-interoperability of sub-components belonging to an architecture.


State Machine Sequence Diagram Abstraction Level Label Transition System External View 
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.


  1. 1.
    OMG MDA. Model Driven Architecture Foundatation Model. OMG ormsc/10-09-06 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Systems engineering handbook. INCOSE (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Estefan, J.A.: Survey of model-based systems engineering (mbse) methodologies. Technical Report INCOSE-TD-2007-003-01, INCOSE MBSE Focus Group (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    IEEE 1220-2005. Standard for application and management of the systems engineering process. In: IEEE Computer Society (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke, E.M.: The birth of model checking. In: 25 Years of Model Checking. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5000, pp. 1–26 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO/IEC9646. Information technology—open systems interconnection—conformance testing methodology and framework—part 1: general concepts (1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Chopra, A.K., Desai, N., Patti, V., Singh, M.P.: Choice, interoperability, and conformance in interaction protocols and service choreographies. In: Sierra, C., Decker, K.S., Sichman, J.S., Castelfranchi, C. (eds.) 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2009). Budapest, Hungary, May 2009Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Laurent Doldi. UML 2 Illustrated: Developing Real Time & Communication Systems. TMSO (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Model checking of safety properties. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 19(3), 291–314 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Puhakka, A., Valmari, A.: Liveness and fairness in process-algebraic verification. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Concurrency Theory, CONCUR ‘01, pp. 202–217. Springer, London, UK (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oracle Corp. The Java Tutorials—Trial Essential Classes: Concurrency. Liveness. (2015)
  12. 12.
    Khalil, A., Dingel, J.: Supporting the Evolution of UML Models in Model Driven Software Development: a Survey. Technical Report 602, School of computing, Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Usman, M., Nadeem, A., Kim, T.H., Cho, E.S.: A survey of consistency checking techniques for UML models. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Advanced Software Engineering and its Applications, pp. 57–62 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abrial, J.-R.: Modeling in Event-B—System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith, G.: The Object-Z Specification Language, Volume 1 of Advances in Formal Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hudon, S., Hoang, T.S.: Systems design guided by progress concerns. In: Integrated Formal Methods, pp. 16–30. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York (1989)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lambolais, T., Courbis, A.-L., Luong, H.-V., Phan, T.-L.: Interoperability analysis of systems. In: 18th World Congress of the International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC 2011), pp. 7879–7884 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Luong, H.-V.: Construction incrémentale de spécifications de systèmes critiques intégrant des procédures de vérification. PhD thesis, Université Paul Sabatier Toulouse III, Oct 2010Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Phan, T.-L.: Développement incrémental de spécifications d’architectures en UML intégrant des procédures de vérification. PhD thesis, Université Montpellier II (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cleaveland, R., Steffen, B.: A preorder for partial process specifications. In: CONCUR ‘90 Theories of Concurrency: Unification and Extension, pp. 141–151. Springer, New York, NY, USA (1990)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leduc, Guy: A framework based on implementation relations for implementing LOTOS specifications. Comput. Netw. ISDN Syst. 25, 23–41 (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moseley, S., Randall, S., Wiles, A.: In pursuit of interoperability. In: Jakobs, K. (ed.) Advanced Topics in Information Technology Standards and Standardization Research, Chap. 17, pp. 321–323. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Luong, H.-V., Lambolais, T., Courbis, A.-L.: Implementation of the conformance relation for incremental development of behavioural models. In: Czarnecki, K. (ed.) Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5301, pp. 356–370. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Farail, P., Gaufillet, P., Canals, A., Le Camus, C., Sciamma, D., Michel, P., Crégut, X., Pantel, M.: The TOPCASED project: a toolkit in open source for critical aeronautic systems design. Ingénieurs de l’Automobile 781, 54–59 (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lang, F.: Exp.Open 2.0: a flexible tool integrating partial order, compositional, and on-the-fly verification methods. In: Integrated Formal Methods, pp. 70–88. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Garavel, H., Lang, F., Mateescu, R., Serwe, W.: CADP 2010: a toolbox for the construction and analysis of distributed processes. In: Abdulla, P.A., Leino, K.R.M. (eds.) Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6605, pp. 372–387. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Saarbrücken (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LGI2P école des mines d’AlèsNîmes cedex 1France
  2. 2.M2 M-NDTLes UlisFrance
  3. 3.LSEI, CEA INESLe Bourget du Lac CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations