On Implicit and Explicit Semantics: Integration Issues in Proof-Based Development of Systems

Version to Read
  • Yamine Ait-Ameur
  • J. Paul Gibson
  • Dominique Méry
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8803)


All software systems execute within an environment or context. Reasoning about the correct behavior of such systems is a ternary relation linking the requirements, system and context models. Formal methods are concerned with providing tool (automated) support for the synthesis and analysis of such models. These methods have quite successfully focused on binary relationships, for example: validation of a formal model against an informal one, verification of one formal model against another formal model, generation of code from a design, and generation of tests from requirements. The contexts of the systems in these cases are treated as second-class citizens: in general, the modelling is implicit and usually distributed between the requirements model and the system model. This paper is concerned with the explicit modelling of contexts as first-class citizens and illustrates concepts related to implicit and explicit semantics on an example using the Event B language.


Verification modelling Contexts Domains 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Levesque, H.J.: A logic of implicit and explicit belief. In: Brachman, R.J. (ed.) AAAI, pp. 198–202. AAAI Press (1984)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Uschold, M.: Where are the semantics in the semantic web? AI Mag. 24, 25–36 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Lamsweerde, A., Willemet, L.: Inferring declarative requirements specifications from operational scenarios. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24, 1089–1114 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowl. Acquis. 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ait-Ameur, Y., Méry, D.: Handling heterogeneity in formal developments of hardware and software systems. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2012, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7610, pp. 327–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garlan, D., Schmerl, B.: Model-based adaptation for self-healing systems. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Self-healing Systems, WOSS 2002, pp. 27–32. ACM, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bjorner, D.: Software Engineering 1 Abstraction and Modelling; Software Engineering 2 Specification of Systems and Languages, Software Engineering 3 Domains, Requirements, and Software Design. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: POPL, pp. 238–252 (1977)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leavens, G.T., Abrial, J.R., Batory, D., Butler, M., Coglio, A., Fisler, K., Hehner, E., Jones, C., Miller, D., Peyton-Jones, S., Sitaraman, M., Smith, D.R., Stump, A.: Roadmap for enhanced languages and methods to aid verification. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering, GPCE 2006, pp. 221–236. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Back, R.J.R.: On correct refinement of programs. Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences 23(1), 49–68 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abrial, J.R.: Modeling in Event-B - System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abrial, J.R., Cansell, D., Méry, D.: A mechanically proved and incremental development of ieee 1394 tree identify protocol. Formal Asp. Comput. 14(3), 215–227 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abrial, J.R., Hallerstede, S.: Refinement, decomposition, and instantiation of discrete models: Application to event-b. Fundam. Inf. 77(1-2), 1–28 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cansell, D., Gibson, J.P., Méry, D.: Refinement: A constructive approach to formal software design for a secure e-voting interface. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 183, 39–55 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jean, S., Pierra, G., Aït-Ameur, Y.: Domain ontologies: A database-oriented analysis. In: Cordeiro, J.A.M., Pedrosa, V., Encarnação, B., Filipe, J. (eds.) WEBIST (1), pp. 341–351. INSTICC Press (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bechhofer, S., Van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D., Patel-Schneider, P., Stein, L., et al.: Owl web ontology language reference. W3C recommendation 10, 2006-01 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bozsak, E., Ehrig, M., Handschuh, S., Hotho, A., Maedche, A., Motik, B., Oberle, D., Schmitz, C., Staab, S., Stojanovic, L., et al.: Kaon—towards a large scale semantic web. E-Commerce and Web Technologies, 231–248 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pierra, G.: Context-explication in conceptual ontologies: the plib approach. In: Proceedings of the 10th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering (CE 2003). Enhanced Interoperable Systems, vol. 26, p. 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S., Zimányi, E.: Spatio-temporal conceptual models: data structures + space + time. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, GIS 1999, pp. 26–33. ACM, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stephenson, A., Mulville, D., Bauer, F., Dukeman, G., Norvig, P., LaPiana, L., Rutledge, P., Folta, D., Sackheim, R.: Mars climate orbiter mishap investigation board phase I report. Technical report, NASA, Washington, DC (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yamine Ait-Ameur
    • 1
  • J. Paul Gibson
    • 2
  • Dominique Méry
    • 3
  1. 1.IRIT - ENSEEIHT. Institut de Recherche en Informatique de ToulouseÉcole Nationale Supérieure d’ Électrotechnique, d’Électronique, d’Informatique, d’Hydraulique et des Télécommunications (ENSEEIHT)France
  2. 2.Département Logiciels-RéseauxIT-SudParisÉvryFrance
  3. 3.LORIA CNRS UMR 7503Université de LorraineVandœuvre-lès-NancyFrance

Personalised recommendations