Skip to main content

The Simulation Relation for Formal E-Contracts

  • 858 Accesses

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNTCS,volume 9587)

Abstract

Relationships between entities in today’s increasingly interconnected context have grown in complexity and evolved from simple communication processes to more complicated distributed systems. Electronics contracts (e-contracts) are of general purpose and aimed to specify relationships in a wide variety of scenario, including web and cloud services, inter and intra organization, electronic banking, etc. It is in this context that we aim to develop a consistent definition for these relationships together with a set of techniques to check their proper use. In this paper we present a process algebra to describe these contract relationships and a set of formal machinery to determine whether an implementation follows the rules established by these contracts. The main formal technique used is a simulation relation where an implementation is checked step by step against a given contract. Several toy examples are provided to facilitate understanding of the formal definitions.

Research partially supported by the Spanish MEC projects ESTuDIo (TIN2012-36812-C02-01, TIN2012-36812-C02-02), DArDOS (TIN2015-65845-C3-01, TIN2015-65845-C3-02), the Comunidad de Madrid project SICOMORo-CM (S2013/ICE-3006) and the UCM-Santander program to fund research groups (group 910606).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-49192-8_40
  • Chapter length: 13 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-662-49192-8
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For these two types of propositions when the main proposition fails and no reparation is defined the contract is violated.

  2. 2.

    There are not restrictions for the execution of those actions.

References

  1. Aceto, L., de Frutos Escrig, D., Gregorio-Rodríguez, C., Ingolfsdottir, A.: Axiomatizing weak ready simulation semantics over BCCSP. In: Cerone, A., Pihlajasaari, P. (eds.) ICTAC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6916, pp. 7–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Bauer, S.S., David, A., Hennicker, R., Guldstrand Larsen, K., Legay, A., Nyman, U., Wąsowski, A.: Moving from specifications to contracts in component-based design. In: de Lara, J., Zisman, A. (eds.) Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering. LNCS, vol. 7212, pp. 43–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Bustan, D., Grumberg, O.: Simulation-based minimization. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 4(2), 181–206 (2003). ACM, New York. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/635499.635502

    MathSciNet  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Camilleri, J.J., Paganelli, G., Schneider, G.: A CNL for contract-oriented diagrams. In: Davis, B., Kaljurand, K., Kuhn, T. (eds.) CNL 2014. LNCS, vol. 8625, pp. 135–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Díaz, G., Cambronero, M.E., Martínez, E., Schneider, G.: Specification and verification of normativetexts using C-O diagrams. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 40(8), 795–817 (2014). http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/TSE.2013.54

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Gentilini, R., Piazza, C., Policriti, A.: From bisimulation to simulation: coarsest partition problems. J. Autom. Reasoning 31(1), 73–103 (2003)

    MATH  MathSciNet  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z.: A formal analysis of a business contract language. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 15(4), 659–685 (2006). http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218843006001529

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Gregorio-Rodríguez, C., Llana, L., Martínez-Torres, R.: Extending mCRL2 with ready simulation and iocos input-output conformance simulation. In: The 30th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, April 2015, to appear

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gregorio-Rodríguez, C., Llana, L., Martínez-Torres, R.: Effectiveness for inputoutput conformance simulation iocos. In: Ábrahám, E., Palamidessi, C. (eds.) FORTE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8461, pp. 100–116. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43613-4_7

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Hennessy, M., Regan, T.: A process algebra for timed systems. Inf. Comput. 117(2), 221–239 (1995). http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/inco.1995.1041

    MATH  MathSciNet  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Katoen, J.-P., Kemna, T., Zapreev, I., Jansen, D.N.: Bisimulation minimisation mostly speeds up probabilistic model checking. In: Grumberg, O., Huth, M. (eds.) TACAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4424, pp. 87–101. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71209-1_9

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Kyas, M., Prisacariu, C., Schneider, G.: Run-time monitoring of electronic contracts. In: Cha, S.S., Choi, J.-Y., Kim, M., Lee, I., Viswanathan, M. (eds.) ATVA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5311, pp. 397–407. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. Lüttgen, G., Vogler, W.: Ready simulation for concurrency: It’s logical!. Inf. Comput. 208(7), 845–867 (2010)

    MATH  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: Challenges in the specification of full contracts. In: Leuschel, M., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) IFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5423, pp. 292–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Prisacariu, C., Schneider, G.: A formal language for electronic contracts. In: Bonsangue, M.M., Johnsen, E.B. (eds.) FMOODS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4468, pp. 174–189. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  16. Prisacariu, C., Schneider, G.: CL: A Logic for Reasoning about Legal Contracts Semantics. Technical report, University of Oslo (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ranzato, F.: A more efficient simulation algorithm on kripke structures. In: Chatterjee, K., Sgall, J. (eds.) MFCS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8087, pp. 753–764. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  18. Schneider, S.: An operational semantics for timed CSP. Inf. Comput. 116(2), 193–213 (1995). http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/inco.1995.1014

    MATH  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  19. TaŞiran, S., Alur, R., Kurshan, R.P., Brayton, R.K.: Verifying abstractions of timed systems. In: Sassone, V., Montanari, U. (eds.) CONCUR 1996. LNCS, vol. 1119, pp. 546–562. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61604-7_75

    Google Scholar 

  20. von Wright, G.H.: Deontic logic. Mind 60, 1–15 (1951)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luis Llana .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Llana, L., Cambronero, ME., Díaz, G. (2016). The Simulation Relation for Formal E-Contracts. In: Freivalds, R., Engels, G., Catania, B. (eds) SOFSEM 2016: Theory and Practice of Computer Science. SOFSEM 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9587. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49192-8_40

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49192-8_40

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-49191-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-49192-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)