8 Formal description techniques

Chapter

Abstract

The description methods introduced in the preceding chapter form the basis for the development of specification languages or formal description techniques. They are applied as semantic models for these techniques. In contrast to the description methods, formal description techniques (FDTs) permit an (almost) complete description of services, protocols, and distributed systems. The requirements on the design of formal description techniques resemble at first glance those of programming language design. Important requirements are a high expressiveness, i.e., the description technique should be able to represent all relevant elements of a service and a protocol, a reasonable level of abstraction to make no reference to possible implementations, the presence of suitable structuring features to promote the understanding and handling of the specification in the further development steps, and the suitability of the language features such that they do not limit or inadequately affect further development stages. Unlike programming languages, formal description techniques demand a formally defined syntax and semantics. The latter represents the crucial difference. It is required to ensure the unique interpretation of the formal specifications.

Keywords

Sequence Diagram Formal Semantic Abstract Syntax Label Transition System Composite State 
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.

References

  1. [Börg 05]
    Börger, E.: The ASM method: A Tutorial Introduction. In: Gramlich, B. (ed.): Frontiers of Combining Systems, LNAI 3717, Springer, pp. 264-283, 2005.Google Scholar
  2. [Bolo 87]
    Bolognesi, T.; Brinksma, E.: Introduction to the ISO Specification Language LOTOS. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 14 (1987): 25-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [Booc 05]
    Booch, G.; Rumbaugh, J.; Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading, 2005.Google Scholar
  4. [Bowm 06]
    Bowman, H.; Gomez, R.: Concurrency Theory. Springer, 2006.Google Scholar
  5. [CADP]
  6. [Dold 03]
    Doldi, L.: Validation of Communications Systems with SDL: The Art of SDL Simulation and Reachability Analysis. Wiley, Chichester, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [Dubu 00]
    Dubuisson, O.: ASN.1 - Communication Between Heterogeneous Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Diego, 2000. http://www.oss.com/asn1/dubuisson.html.
  8. [Ehri 85]
    Ehrig, H.; Mahr, B.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 1. Springer, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. [Esch 00]
    Eschbach, R., Glässer, U., Gotzhein, R., Prinz, A.: On the Formal Semantics of SDL-2000: A Compilation Approach Based on an Abstract SDL Machine. In: Y. Gurevich, Kutter, P.W.; Odersky, M; Thiele, L. (eds.): Abstract State Machines - Theory and Applications. LNCS 1912, Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. [FORTE]
    Annual IFIP Working Conference on formal description techniques. In 1996 it was combined with PSTV (Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification). Today it belongs to the DISCOTEC conference series. Proceedings of the FORTE conference cited here are, for instance, [Gotz 96a], [Kim 01] and [Koni 03].Google Scholar
  11. [Haug 01]
    Haugen, Ø.: MSC-2000 Interaction Diagrams for the New Millennium. Computer Networks 35 (2001) 6: 721-732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [Herm 98]
    Hermanns, H.; Herzog, U.; Mertsiotakis, V.: Stochastic Process Algebras - Between LOTOS and Markov chains. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 30 (1998): 901-924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [Herr 00]
    Herrmann, P.; Krumm, H.: A Framework for Modeling Transfer Protocols. Computer Networks 34 (2000) 2: 317-337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [Herr 02]
    Herrmann, P.; Krumm, H.; Drögehorn, O.; Geisselhardt, W.: Framework and Tool Support for Formal Verification of High Speed Transfer Protocol Designs. Telecommunication Systems 20 (2002) 3-4: 291-310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [Hoar 85]
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1985.MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. [ISO 8807]
    ISO, Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - LOTOS -A Formal Description Technique Based on the Temporal Ordering of Observational Behaviour. IS 8807, 1988.Google Scholar
  17. [ISO 8824]
    ISO/IEC 8824 (1998)/ITU-T Recommendation X.680-683 (1997), Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1).Google Scholar
  18. [ISO 8825]
    ISO/IEC 8825 (1998)/ITU-T Recommendation X.690-691(1997), Information Technology - ASN.1 Encoding Rules.Google Scholar
  19. [ISO 15437]
    ISO, Information Technology - E-LOTOS. IS 15437, 2001Google Scholar
  20. [ITU-T 100F]
    ITU-T Recommendation Z.100 Annex F: SDL Formal Definition.Google Scholar
  21. [ITU-T 109]
    ITU-T Recommendation Z.109: SDL Combined with UML. 2006/07.Google Scholar
  22. [ITU-T 120]
    ITU-T Recommendation Z.120: Message Sequence Charts (MSC), 1999.Google Scholar
  23. [Kali 10]
    Kaliappan, P.S., Konig, H., Schmerl, S.: Model-Driven Protocol Design Based on Component Oriented Modeling. In: Dong J.S.; Zhu, H.: Formal Engineering Methods and Software Engineering. LCNS 6447, Springer, pp. 613-629, 2010.Google Scholar
  24. [Krae 09a]
    Kraemer, F. A.; Slatten, V.; Herrmann, P.: Tool Support for the Rapid Composition, Analysis and Implementation of Reactive Services. The Journal of Systems and Software 82 (2009): 2068-2080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [Krae 09b]
    Kraemer, F.A.; Brak, R.; Herrmann, P.: Compositional Service Engineering with Arctis. In: Teletronikk, Special Issue on Model-Driven Security - Integrating Availability in System Development, Telenor, 1 (2009): 135-151.Google Scholar
  26. [Lamp 94]
    Lamport, L.: The Temporal Logic of Actions. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 16 (1994) 3: 872-923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [Lano 09]
    Lano, K.: UML 2 Semantics and Applications. Wiley, New York, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [Larm 99]
    Larmouth, J.: ASN.1 Complete. Morgan Kaufmann Publisher, San Diego, 1999 http://www.oss.com/asn1/larmouth.html
  29. [Mauw 96]
    Mauw, S.: The Formalization of Message Sequence Charts. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 28 (1996) 12: 1643 - 1657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [Mauw 99]
    Mauw, S.; M.A. Reniers: Operational Semantics for MSC’96. Computer Networks 31 (1999) 17: 1785-1799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [Mits 01]
    Mitschele-Thiel, A.: Systems Engineering with SDL: Developing Performance-Critical Communication Systems. Wiley, New York, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [Shar 08]
    Sharp, R.: Principles of Protocol Design. Springer, 2008.Google Scholar
  33. [SDL Forum]
    Conference series of the SDL Forum Society which takes place every two years. It is dedicated to current issues concerning the application and further development of SDL and nowadays of other related language, such as UML, MSC, ASN.1, and TTCN. (see http://www.sdl-forum.org). [Cava 97] and [Dsso 99] are proceedings of this conference series.
  34. [Viss 88]
    Vissers, C. A.; Scollo, G.; van Sinderen, M.: Architecture and Specification Style in Formal Descriptions of Distributed Systems. In: Sabnani, K. (ed.): Protocol Specification, Testing, and Verification VIII. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988.Google Scholar
  35. [Wet 05]
    de Wet, N.; Kritzinger, P.S.: Using UML Models for the Performance Analysis of Network Systems. Computer Networks 49 (2005) 5: 627-642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceBrandenburg University of Technology CottbusCottbusGermany

Personalised recommendations