Advertisement

Combining Verification and MDE Illustrated by a Formal Java Development

  • Selma Djeddai
  • Mohamed Mezghiche
  • Martin Strecker
Conference paper
  • 553 Downloads
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 347)

Abstract

Formal methods are increasingly used in software engineering. They offer a formal frame that guarentees the correctness of developments. However, they use complex notations that might be difficult to understand for unaccustomed users. It thus becomes interesting to formally specify the core components of a language, implement a provably correct development, and manipulate its components in a graphical/textual editor.

This contribution constitutes a first step towards using Model Driven Engineering (MDE) technology in an interactive proof development. It presents a transformation process from functional data structures, commonly used in proof assistants, to Class diagrams in Ecore. To perform the transformation we use an MDE-based methodology. The resulting metamodels from the transformation process are used to generate textual or graphical editors for domain specific languages (DSLs) using tools provided by the Eclipse enviornment. To illustrate this approach we use as example a simple DSL description. It respresents a Java-like language enriched with timing annotations.

Keywords

Model Driven Engineering Model Transformation Formal Methods Verification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alanen, M., Porres, I.: A relation between context-free grammars and meta object facility metamodels. Tech. rep., Turku Centre for Computer Science (TUCS) (March 2003), http://www.cis.uab.edu/courses/cs593/spring2010/TR606.pdf
  2. 2.
    Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B., Georg, G., Ray, I.: UML2Alloy: A Challenging Model Transformation. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 436–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baklanova, N., Strecker, M., Féraud, L.: Resource Sharing Conflicts Checking in Multithreaded Java Programs. In: Informal Proceedings FAC 2012 (April 2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bézivin, J.: Model Driven Engineering: An Emerging Technical Space. In: Lämmel, R., Saraiva, J., Visser, J. (eds.) GTTSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 4143, pp. 36–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2006), https://www.uni-koblenz.de/~laemmel/gttse/2005/pdfs/41430036.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Budinsky, F., Brodsky, S.A., Merks, E.: Eclipse Modeling Framework. Pearson Education (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coq Development Team: The Coq proof assistant reference manual. version 8.31 (2010), http://coq.inria.fr/refman/, http://coq.inria.fr/refman/
  7. 7.
    Delahaye, D., Étienne, J.F., Viguié Donzeau-Gouge, V.: A Formal and Sound Transformation from Focal to UML: An Application to Airport Security Regulations. In: UML and Formal Methods (UML&FM), vol. 4, pp. 267–274 (2008), http://cedric.cnam.fr/~delahaye/?page=publis
  8. 8.
    van Deursen, A., Klint, P., Visser, J.: Domain-specific languages: An annotated bibliography. SIGPLAN Notices 35(6), 26–36 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eclipse Community: Tutorials and documentation for Xtext 2.0 (2011), http://www.eclipse.org/Xtext/documentation/
  10. 10.
    Ehrig, K., Ermel, C., Hänsgen, S., Taentzer, G.: Generation of visual editors as Eclipse plugins. In: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2005, pp. 134–143. ACM, New York (2005), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1101908.1101930 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    France, R.B., Evans, A., Lano, K., Rumpe, B.: The UML as a formal modeling notation. Computer Standards & Interfaces 19(7), 325–334 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gronback, R.C.: Eclipse Modeling Project: A Domain-Specific Language (DSL) Toolkit. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Idani, A.: UML Models Engineering from Static and Dynamic Aspects of Formal Specifications. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS 2009 and EMMSAD 2009. LNBIP, vol. 29, pp. 237–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Idani, A., Boulanger, J.L., Philippe, L.: A generic process and its tool support towards combining UML and B for safety critical systems. In: Hu, G. (ed.) CAINE, pp. 185–192. ISCA (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kleppe, A.G., Warmer, J., Bast, W.: MDA Explained: The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Lara, J., Vangheluwe, H.: Using AToM3 as a meta-case tool. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS), Ciudad Real, Spain, pp. 642–649 (April 2002), http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~hv/publications/02.ICEIS.MCASE.pdf
  17. 17.
    Leroy, X., Doligez, D., Frisch, A., Garrigue, J., Rémy, D., Vouillon, J.: The OCaml system release 3.12. documentation and user’s manual (July 2011), http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/index.html
  18. 18.
    Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/HOL. LNCS, vol. 2283. Springer, Heidelberg (2002), http://isabelle.in.tum.de zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Odersky, M., Altherr, P., Cremet, V., Emir, B., Maneth, S., Micheloud, S., Mihaylov, N., Schinz, M., Stenman, E., Zenger, M.: An Overview of the Scala Programming Language. Tech. Rep. IC/2004/64, EPFL Lausanne, Switzerland (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    OMG: Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core v. 2.0 Document (2006), http://www.omg.org
  21. 21.
    Peyton-Jones, S.: Haskell 98 language and libraries: the revised report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003), http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/9780521826143 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Selic, B.: The pragmatics of model-driven development. IEEE Software 20(5), 19–25 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shah, S.M.A., Anastasakis, K., Bordbar, B.: From UML to Alloy and Back Again. In: Ghosh, S. (ed.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6002, pp. 158–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Steele, G.L.: Common LISP, 2nd edn. Digital Press (1990)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wimmer, M., Kramler, G.: Bridging Grammarware and Modelware. In: Bruel, J.-M. (ed.) MoDELS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3844, pp. 159–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Selma Djeddai
    • 1
  • Mohamed Mezghiche
    • 2
  • Martin Strecker
    • 1
  1. 1.Université de ToulouseIRIT (Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse)Toulouse Cedex 9France
  2. 2.LIMOSE, UMBBBoumerdèsAlgeria

Personalised recommendations