Correct Composition of Dephased Behavioural Models

  • Juliana Bowles
  • Marco B. CaminatiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10487)


Scenarios of execution are commonly used to specify partial behaviour and interactions between different objects and components in a system. To avoid overall inconsistency in specifications, various automated methods have emerged in the literature to compose (behavioural) models. In recent work, we have shown how the theorem prover Isabelle can be combined with the constraint solver Z3 to efficiently detect inconsistencies in two or more behavioural models and, in their absence, generate the composition. Here, we extend our approach further and show how to generate the correct composition (as a set of valid traces) of dephased models. This work has been inspired by a problem from a medical domain where different care pathways (for chronic conditions) may be applied to the same patient with different starting points.


  1. 1.
    Araújo, J., Whittle, J., Kim, D.: Modeling and composing scenario-based requirements with aspects. In: RE 2004, pp. 58–67. IEEE Computer Society Press (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bjørner, N., Phan, A.-D., Fleckenstein, L.: \(\nu \)z - An Optimizing SMT Solver. In: Baier, C., Tinelli, C. (eds.) TACAS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9035, pp. 194–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-46681-0_14 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bowles, J., Alwanain, M., Bordbar, B., Chen, Y.: Matching and Merging Scenarios Automatically with Alloy. In: Hammoudi, S., Pires, L.F., Filipe, J., das Neves, R.C. (eds.) MODELSWARD 2014. CCIS, vol. 506, pp. 100–116. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-25156-1_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowles, J.K.F., Bordbar, B., Alwanain, M.: A Logical Approach for Behavioural Composition of Scenario-Based Models. In: Butler, M., Conchon, S., Zaïdi, F. (eds.) ICFEM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9407, pp. 252–269. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-25423-4_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bowles, J.K.F.: Decomposing Interactions. In: Johnson, M., Vene, V. (eds.) AMAST 2006. LNCS, vol. 4019, pp. 189–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11784180_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bowles, J., Bordbar, B.: A formal model for integrating multiple views. In: ACSD 2007, pp. 71–79. IEEE Computer Society Press (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bowles, J., Bordbar, B., Alwanain, M.: Weaving true-concurrent aspects using constraint solvers. In: Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD 2016). IEEE Computer Society Press, June 2016Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bowles, J.K.F., Caminati, M.B.: Mind the gap: addressing behavioural inconsistencies with formal methods. In: 23rd Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC). IEEE Computer Society (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Ippolito, N., Frias, M.F., Galeotti, J.P., Lanzarotti, E., Mera, S.: Alloy+HotCore: A Fast Approximation to Unsat Core. In: Frappier, M., Glässer, U., Khurshid, S., Laleau, R., Reeves, S. (eds.) ABZ 2010. LNCS, vol. 5977, pp. 160–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-11811-1_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Come, Let’s Play. Scenario-based Programming Using LSCs and the Play-Engine. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jackson, D.: Software Abstractions: Logic, Language and Analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klein, J., Hélouët, L., Jézéquel, J.: Semantic-based weaving of scenarios. In: AOSD 2006, pp. 27–38. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kovalov, A., Bowles, J.K.F.: Avoiding Medication Conflicts for Patients with Multimorbidities. In: Ábrahám, E., Huisman, M. (eds.) IFM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9681, pp. 376–390. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-33693-0_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Küster-Filipe, J.: Modelling concurrent interactions. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 351, 203–220 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liang, H., Diskin, Z., Dingel, J., Posse, E.: A General Approach for Scenario Integration. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 204–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-87875-9_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nipkow, T., Wenzel, M., Paulson, L.C. (eds.): Isabelle/HOL–A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. LNCS, vol. 2283. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    OMG: Business Process Model and Notation. Version 2.0. OMG, documentid: formal/2011-01-03 (2011).
  19. 19.
    OMG: UML: Superstructure. Version 2.4.1. OMG, documentid: formal/2011-08-06 (2011).
  20. 20.
    Reddy, R., Solberg, A., France, R., Ghosh, S.: Composing sequence models using tags. In: Proceedings of MoDELS Workshop on Aspect Oriented Modeling (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rubin, J., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S.: Declarative approach for model composition. In: MiSE 2008, pp. 7–14. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Uchitel, S., Brunet, G., Chechik, M.: Synthesis of partial behavior models from properties and scenarios. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35(3), 384–406 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Whittle, J., Araújo, J., Moreira, A.: Composing aspect models with graph transformations. In: Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Early Aspects at ICSE, pp. 59–65. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Widl, M., Biere, A., Brosch, P., Egly, U., Heule, M., Kappel, G., Seidl, M., Tompits, H.: Guided Merging of Sequence Diagrams. In: Czarnecki, K., Hedin, G. (eds.) SLE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7745, pp. 164–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-36089-3_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Winskel, G., Nielsen, M.: Models for Concurrency. In: Abramsky, S., Gabbay, D., Maibaum, T. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Computer Science: Semantic Modelling, vol. 4, pp. 1–148. Oxford Science Publications, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang, D., Li, S., Liu, X.: An approach for model composition and verification. In: NCM 2009, pp. 1102–1107. IEEE Computer Society Press (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUK

Personalised recommendations