Formalizing a Domain Specific Language Using SOS: An Industrial Case Study

  • Frank P. M. Stappers
  • Sven Weber
  • Michel A. Reniers
  • Suzana Andova
  • Istvan Nagy
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6940)


This paper describes the process of formalizing an existing, industrial domain specific language (DSL) that is based on the task-resource paradigm. Initially, the semantics of this DSL is defined informally and implicitly through an interpreter. The formalization starts by projecting the existing concrete syntax onto a formal abstract syntax that defines the language operators and process terms. Next, we define the dynamic operational semantics at the level of individual syntactical notions, using structural operational semantics (SOS) as a formal meta-language. Here, the impact of the formalization process on the DSL is considered in terms of disambiguation of underlying (semantic) language design decisions.


Operational Semantic Precedence Relation Abstract Syntax Process Term Concrete Syntax 
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.
    Aredo, D.B.: A Framework for Semantics of UML Sequence Diagrams in PVS. Journal of Universal Computer Science 8(7), 674–697 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baeten, J.C.M., Basten, T., Reniers, M.A.: Process Algebra: Equational Theories of Communicating Processes (Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science). Cambridge University Press (December 2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bol, R.N., Groote, J.F.: The Meaning of Negative Premises in Transition System Specifications. J. ACM 43(5), 863–914 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Börger, E.: High Level System Design and Analysis Using Abstract State Machines. In: Hutter, D., Traverso, P. (eds.) FM-Trends 1998. LNCS, vol. 1641, pp. 1–43. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Börger, E., Cavarra, A., Riccobene, E.: An ASM Semantics for UML Activity Diagrams. In: Rus, T. (ed.) AMAST 2000. LNCS, vol. 1816, pp. 293–308. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: Verification of UML/OCL Class Diagrams using Constraint Programming. In: ICSTW 2008, pp. 73–80. IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark, T., Warmer, J. (eds.): Object Modeling with the OCL. LNCS, vol. 2263. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Combemale, B., Crégut, X., Garoche, P.-L., Thirioux, X.: Essay on Semantics Definition in MDE - An Instrumented Approach for Model Verification. JSW 4(9), 943–958 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    David, A., Möller, M.O., Yi, W.: Formal Verification of UML Statecharts with Real-Time Extensions. In: Kutsche, R.-D., Weber, H. (eds.) FASE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2306, pp. 218–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Di Ruscio, D., Jouault, F., Kurtev, I., Bézivin, J., Pierantonio, A.: Extending AMMA for Supporting Dynamic Semantics Specifications of DSLs. Technical Report n. 06.02, Laboratoire d’Informatique de Nantes-Atlantique (April 2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Evermann, J., Wand, Y.: Toward Formalizing Domain Modeling Semantics in Language Syntax. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 31(1), 21–37 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Graaf, B., Weber, S., van Deursen, A.: Model-Driven Migration of Supervisory Machine Control Architectures. JSS 81(4), 517–535 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Groote, J.F., Mathijssen, A.J.H., Reniers, M.A., Usenko, Y.S., van Weerdenburg, M.J.: The Formal Specification Language mCRL2. In: MMOSS. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, vol. 06351. IBFI, Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horn, A.: On Sentences Which are True of Direct Unions of Algebras. J. Symb. Log. 16(1), 14–21 (1951)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    IEEE Standard for the Scheme Programming Language. IEEE Std 1178-1990 (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jackson, E.K., Schulte, W.: Model Generation for Horn Logic with Stratified Negation. In: Suzuki, K., Higashino, T., Yasumoto, K., El-Fakih, K. (eds.) FORTE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5048, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jackson, E.K., Sztipanovits, J.: Formalizing the structural semantics of domain-specific modeling languages. Software and System Modeling 8(4), 451–478 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jansamak, S., Surarerks, A.: Formalization of UML statechart models using Concurrent Regular Expressions. In: ACSC 2004, pp. 83–88. Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kleppe, A.: Software language engineering. Addisson-Wesley (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuske, S.: A Formal Semantics of UML State Machines Based on Structured Graph Transformation. In: Gogolla, M., Kobryn, C. (eds.) UML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2185, pp. 241–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mauw, S., Wiersma, W.T., Willemse, T.J.H.: Language-Driven System Design. IJSEKE 14(6), 625–663 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lilius, J., Paltor, I.P.: Formalising UML State Machines for Model Checking. In: France, R.B. (ed.) UML 1999. LNCS, vol. 1723, pp. 430–444. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Plotkin, G.D.: A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 60-61, 17–139 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, 2nd edn. Pearson Higher Education (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sadilek, D.A., Wachsmuth, G.: Using Grammarware Languages to Define Operational Semantics of Modelled Languages. In: Oriol, M., Meyer, B. (eds.) TOOLS EUROPE 2009. LNBIP, vol. 33, pp. 348–356. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stappers, F.P.M., Reniers, M.A., Weber, S.: Transforming SOS Specifications to Linear Processes. In: Salaün, G., Schätz, B. (eds.) FMICS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6959, pp. 196–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tonino, H.: A Sound and Complete SOS-Semantics for Non-Distributed Deterministic Abstract State Machines. In: Workshop on Abstract State Machines, pp. 91–110 (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Beek, D.A., Reniers, M.A., Schiffelers, R.R.H., Rooda, J.E.: Foundations of a Compositional Interchange Format for Hybrid Systems. In: Bemporad, A., Bicchi, A., Buttazzo, G. (eds.) HSCC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4416, pp. 587–600. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van den Nieuwelaar, N.J.M.: Supervisory Machine Control by Predictive-reactive Scheduling. PhD thesis, Technische University Eindhoven (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wielemaker, J.: An Overview of the SWI-Prolog Programming Environment. In: WLPE. Report, vol. CW371, pp. 1–16. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wolterink, T.J.L.: Operational Semantics Applied to Model Driven Engineering. Master’s thesis, University of Twente (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank P. M. Stappers
    • 1
  • Sven Weber
    • 2
  • Michel A. Reniers
    • 3
  • Suzana Andova
    • 1
  • Istvan Nagy
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Mathematics and Computer ScienceEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Dept. for Architecture and PlatformASMLVeldhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Dept. of Mechanical EngineeringEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations