A Modular Approach for Reusing Formalisms in Verification Tools of Concurrent Systems

  • Étienne André
  • Benoît Barbot
  • Clément Démoulins
  • Lom Messan Hillah
  • Francis Hulin-Hubard
  • Fabrice Kordon
  • Alban Linard
  • Laure Petrucci
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8144)

Abstract

Over the past two decades, numerous verification tools have been successfully used for verifying complex concurrent systems, modelled using various formalisms. However, it is still hard to coordinate these tools since they rely on such a large number of formalisms. Having a proper syntactical mechanism to interrelate them through variability would increase the capability of effective integrated formal methods. In this paper, we propose a modular approach for defining new formalisms by reusing existing ones and adding new features and/or constraints. Our approach relies on standard XML technologies; their use provides the capability of rapidly and automatically obtaining tools for representing and validating models. It thus enables fast iterations in developing and testing complex formalisms. As a case study, we applied our modular definition approach on families of Petri nets and timed automata.

Keywords

Formal methods Model Driven Engineering Interoperability Reusability Concurrent Systems Model Checking 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alur, R., Dill, D.L.: A theory of timed automata. Theoretical Computer Science 126(2), 183–235 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    André, É., Fribourg, L., Kühne, U., Soulat, R.: IMITATOR 2.5: A tool for analyzing robustness in scheduling problems. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Méry, D. (eds.) FM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7436, pp. 33–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    André, É., Hillah, L.-M., Hulin-Hubard, F., Kordon, F., Lembachar, Y., Linard, A., Petrucci, L.: CosyVerif: An open source extensible verification environment. In: ICECCS. IEEE Computer Society (to appear, 2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baldan, P., Bruni, A., Corradini, A., König, B., Rodríguez, C., Schwoon, S.: Efficient unfolding of contextual Petri nets. Theoretical Computer Science 449, 2–22 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ballarini, P., Djafri, H., Duflot, M., Haddad, S., Pekergin, N.: HASL: An expressive language for statistical verification of stochastic models. In: VALUETOOLS, pp. 306–315 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blom, S., van de Pol, J., Weber, M.: LTSmin: Distributed and symbolic reachability. In: Touili, T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 354–359. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colange, M., Baarir, S., Kordon, F., Thierry-Mieg, Y.: Crocodile: A symbolic/symbolic tool for the analysis of symmetric nets with bags. In: Kristensen, L.M., Petrucci, L. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6709, pp. 338–347. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferré, S., Ridoux, O.: Logic functors: A toolbox of components for building customized and embeddable logics. Technical report, INRIA (2006), http://www.irisa.fr/LIS/ferre/logfun/doc/ResearchReportInria0000.pdf
  9. 9.
    Haddad, S., Kordon, F., Petrucci, L., Pradat-Peyre, J.-F., Trèves, N.: Efficient state-based analysis by introducing bags in Petri net color domains. In: ACC 2009, pp. 5018–5025. Omnipress IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamez, A., Hillah, L.-M., Kordon, F., Linard, A., Paviot-Adet, E., Renault, X., Thierry-Mieg, Y.: New features in CPN-AMI 3: Focusing on the analysis of complex distributed systems. In: ACSD, pp. 273–275. IEEE Computer Society (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Henzinger, T.A., Ho, P.-H., Wong-Toi, H.: HyTech: A model checker for hybrid systems. Software Tools for Technology Transfer 1, 110–122 (1997)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hillah, L.M., Kordon, F., Petrucci, L., Trèves, N.: PNML framework: An extendable reference implementation of the Petri net markup language. In: Lilius, J., Penczek, W. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6128, pp. 318–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hong, S., Kordon, F., Paviot-Adet, E., Evangelista, S.: Computing a hierarchical static order for decision diagram-based representation from P/T nets. In: Jensen, K., Donatelli, S., Kleijn, J. (eds.) ToPNoC 2012. LNCS, vol. 6900, pp. 121–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO/JTC1/SC34. ISO/IEC 19757-2:2008: Information Technology – Document Schema Definition Language (DSDL) – Part 2: Regular-grammar-based validation – RELAX NG. ISO/IEC, http://relaxng.org
  15. 15.
    ISO/JTC1/SC34. ISO/IEC 19757-3:2006: Information Technology - Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL) - Part 3: Rule-based validation - Schematron. ISO/IEC, http://schematron.com/
  16. 16.
    ISO/JTC1/SC7/WG19. ISO/IEC 15909-2:2011. Systems and software engineering – High-level Petri nets – Part 2: Transfer format (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klai, K., Ochi, H.: Modular verification of inter-enterprise business processes. In: eKNOW, pp. 155–161 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kordon, F., Linard, A., Buchs, D., Colange, M., Evangelista, S., Fronc, L., Hillah, L.-M., Lohmann, N., Paviot-Adet, E., Pommereau, F., Rohr, C., Thierry-Mieg, Y., Wimmel, H., Wolf, K.: Raw report on the model checking contest at Petri nets, 2012. Technical report, CoRR (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lakos, C., Petrucci, L.: Modular analysis of systems composed of semiautonomous subsystems. In: ACSD, pp. 185–196. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Larsen, K.G., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: UPPAAL in a nutshell. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 1(1-2), 134–152 (1997)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu, Y., Sun, J., Dong, J.S.: PAT 3: An extensible architecture for building multi-domain model checkers. In: ISSRE, pp. 190–199. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Paternostro, M., Merks, E.: EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework, 2nd edn. Eclipse Series. Addison-Wesley Professional (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    The CosyVerif group. CosyVerif Web page, http://www.cosyverif.org
  24. 24.
    Urbas, M., Jamnik, M.: Diabelli: A heterogeneous proof system. In: Gramlich, B., Miller, D., Sattler, U. (eds.) IJCAR 2012. LNCS(LNAI), vol. 7364, pp. 559–566. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Étienne André
    • 1
  • Benoît Barbot
    • 2
  • Clément Démoulins
    • 3
  • Lom Messan Hillah
    • 4
    • 5
  • Francis Hulin-Hubard
    • 2
  • Fabrice Kordon
    • 4
    • 5
  • Alban Linard
    • 2
  • Laure Petrucci
    • 1
  1. 1.Sorbonne Paris Cité, LIPN, CNRS, UMR 7030Université Paris 13VilletaneuseFrance
  2. 2.LSV, CNRS, INRIA & ENS CachanFrance
  3. 3.EPITA Research and Development Laboratory (LRDE)France
  4. 4.LIP6, CNRS UMR 7606Université P. & M. CurieFrance
  5. 5.Université P. OuestFrance

Personalised recommendations