Integrated formal methods : second international conference, IFM 2000, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, November 1-3, 2000 : proceedings

449 Pages·2000·2.7 MB·English

by  International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods (2nd : 2000 : Dagstuhl Castle, Germany)

Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1945
EditedbyG.Goos,J.HartmanisandJ.vanLeeuwen
3
Berlin
Heidelberg
NewYork
Barcelona
HongKong
London
Milan
Paris
Singapore
Tokyo
Wolfgang Grieskamp Thomas Santen
Bill Stoddart (Eds.)
Integrated
Formal Methods
Second International Conference, IFM 2000
Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, November 1-3, 2000
Proceedings
1 3
SeriesEditors
GerhardGoos,KarlsruheUniversity,Germany
JurisHartmanis,CornellUniversity,NY,USA
JanvanLeeuwen,UtrechtUniversity,TheNetherlands
VolumeEditors
WolfgangGrieskamp
ThomasSanten
TUBerlin,Sekr.FR5-13bzw.5-6
Franklinstr.28-29,10587Berlin,Germany
E-mail:{wg,santen}@cs.tu-berlin.de
BillStoddart
UniversityofTeesside
SchoolofComputingandMathematics
MiddlesbroughTS13BA,UK
E-mail:[email protected]
Cataloging-in-PublicationDataappliedfor
DieDeutscheBibliothek-CIP-Einheitsaufnahme
Integratedformalmethods:secondinternationalconference;
proceedings/IFM2000,DagstuhlCastle,Germany,November1-3,
2000.WolfgangGrieskamp...(ed.).-Berlin;Heidelberg;NewYork;
Barcelona;HongKong;London;Milan;Paris;Singapore;Tokyo:
Springer,2000
(Lecturenotesincomputerscience;Vol.1945)
ISBN3-540-41196-8
CRSubjectClassification(1998):F.3,D.3,D.2,D.1
ISSN0302-9743
ISBN3-540-41196-8Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelbergNewYork
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.Allrightsarereserved,whetherthewholeorpartofthematerialis
concerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,re-useofillustrations,recitation,broadcasting,
reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherway,andstorageindatabanks.Duplicationofthispublication
orpartsthereofispermittedonlyundertheprovisionsoftheGermanCopyrightLawofSeptember9,1965,
initscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemustalwaysbeobtainedfromSpringer-Verlag.Violationsare
liableforprosecutionundertheGermanCopyrightLaw.
Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelbergNewYork
amemberofBertelsmannSpringerScience+BusinessMediaGmbH
©Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg2000
PrintedinGermany
Typesetting:Camera-readybyauthor,dataconversionbyPTP-Berlin,StefanSossna
Printedonacid-freepaper SPIN:10780898 06/3142 543210
Preface
IFM 2000, the second in a series of international conferences on Integrated For-
mal Methods, was held at the 18th-century chaˆteau of Schloss Dagstuhl, Saar-
land, Germany, from the 1st to the 3rd of November 2000.
The conference programme consisted of invited talks from Sir Tony Hoare
FRS and Wolfram Schulte, along with 22 papers selected from 58 submissions.
Applying formal methods may involve the modelling of different aspects of
a system that are expressed through different paradigms. This motivates us
to research the combination of different viewpoints of a system, either by the
creation of hybrid notations, by extending existing notations, by translating
between notations, or by incorporating a wider perspective with the innovative
use of an existing notation.
The integration of formal methods promises great benefits to systems mo-
delling and software development. Regardless of the approach taken, however,
significant issues can arise in areas such as semantic integration, the tractabi-
lity of our notations, the integration of tool support, the integration of proof
systems, consistency, and completeness. Issues arise equally in our conceptuali-
sation of systems at different levels of abstraction and the development of these
conceptualisations through the process of refinement.
ThestatedthemeofIFM’99wastheintegrationofstate-basedandbehaviou-
ral formalisms. For IFM 2000 this was widened, and the submitted papers have
been grouped in five technical sessions, covering the linking and extending of
notations, methodology, the foundation of one formalism in another, semantics,
and aspects of verification and validation.
We hope that these proceedings will be of benefit both to the conference
participantsandtothewidercommunityofworkersinthefield.Theproduction
of these proceedings would not have been possible without the invaluable help
of the programme committee and external referees, and of all the contributors
who submitted papers to the conference.
November 2000 Wolfgang Grieskamp
Thomas Santen
Bill Stoddart
Organization
Wolfgang Grieskamp, Technical University of Berlin, Germany
Thomas Santen, Technical University of Berlin, Germany
Bill Stoddart, University of Teesside, UK
Program Committee
Keijiro Araki (Kyushu, Japan) Mike Hinchey (Omaha, USA)
Didier Bert (Grenoble, France) Bernd Krieg-Bru¨ckner
Egon Bo¨rger (Pisa, Italy) (Bremen, Germany)
Jonathan Bowen (London, UK) Michel Lemoine (Toulouse, France)
Micheal Butler (Southampton, UK) Shaoying Liu (Hiroshima, Japan)
Jim Davies (Oxford, UK) John McDermid (York, UK)
John Derrick (Kent, UK) Dominique M´ery (Nancy, France)
Jin Song Dong (Singapore) Thomas Santen (Berlin, Germany)
Heiko Do¨rr (Berlin, Germany) Steve Schneider (London, UK)
John Fitzgerald (Newcastle, UK) Wolfram Schulte (Redmond, USA)
Andy Galloway (York, UK) Jane Sinclair (Warwick, UK)
Chris George (Macao) Graeme Smith (Brisbane, Australia)
Wolfgang Grieskamp Bill Stoddart (Teesside, UK)
(Berlin, Germany) Kenji Taguchi (Uppsala, Sweden)
Henri Habrias (Nantes, France) W J (Hans) Toetenel (Delft, Holland)
Susumu Hayashi (Kobe, Japan) Heike Wehrheim
Maritta Heisel (Magdeburg, Germany) (Oldenburg, Germany)
Additional Reviewers
Richard Banach Dang van Hung Mark Saaltink
Christie Bolton Tomasz Janowski Holger Schlingloff
Dominique Cansell Markus Lepper Carron Shankland
David Carrington Liu Jing Kim Soon-Kyeong
Marc Cavazza Brendan Mahony Carsten Su¨hl
Michael Cebulla Stephan Merz Ulrich Ultes-Nitsche
Steve Dunne Michael Meyer Jacob Wieland
Carla Ferreira zu Hoerste Qiwen Xu
Dennis Furey Tim Mossakowski Hirokazu Yatsu
He Jifeng Steve Paynter Shoji Yuen
Monika Heiner Jean-Claude Reynaud
Steffen Helke Dean Rosenzweig
Table of Contents
Invited Talk
Assertions......................................................... 1
Tony Hoare
Linking and Extending Notations
State-Based Extension of CASL...................................... 3
Hubert Baumeister and Alexandre Zamulin
Linking DC Together with TRSL .................................... 25
Anne Elisabeth Haxthausen and Xia Yong
Formalizing Timing Diagrams as Causal Dependencies for Verification
Purposes.......................................................... 45
J¨org Fischer and Stefan Conrad
A Process Compensation Language................................... 61
Michael Butler and Carla Ferreira
Activity Graphs and Processes....................................... 77
Christie Bolton and Jim Davies
Structuring Real-Time Object-Z Specifications......................... 97
Graeme Smith and Ian Hayes
ISpec: Towards Practical and Sound Interface Specifications ............ 116
Hans B.M. Jonkers
Methodology
Cooperation of Formal Methods in an Engineering Based Software
Development Process ............................................... 136
Yamine Ait-Ameur
Developing Control Systems Components ............................. 156
Luigia Petre and Kaisa Sere
Specification and Analysis of Automata-Based Designs.................. 176
Jeremy Bryans, Lynne Blair, Howard Bowman, and John Derrick
Structural Refinement in Object-Z / CSP ............................. 194
John Derrick and Graeme Smith
X Table of Contents
TowardsaUnifiedDevelopmentMethodologyforShared-VariableParallel
and Distributed Programs........................................... 214
Ju¨rgen Dingel
Foundation of One Formalism by Another
Construction of Finite Labelled Transition Systems from B Abstract
Systems ..........................................................235
Didier Bert and Francis Cave
μ-Charts and Z: Hows, Whys, and Wherefores ......................... 255
Greg Reeve and Steve Reeves
Combining Operational Semantics, Logic Programming and Literate
Programming in the Specification and Animation of theVerilog Hardware
Description Language .............................................. 277
Jonathan P. Bowen
Invited Talk
Why Doesn’t Anyone Use Formal Methods? ........................... 297
Wolfram Schulte
Semantics
How to Write a Healthiness Condition ................................ 299
Yifeng Chen
A Concurrent and Compositional Petri Net Semantics of Preemption ..... 318
Hanna Klaudel and Franck Pommereau
Verification and Validation
An Approach to Symbolic Test Generation ............................ 338
Vlad Rusu, Lydie du Bousquet, and Thierry J´eron
Behavioral Conformance Verification in an Integrated Approach Using
UML and B ....................................................... 358
Eric Meyer and Thomas Santen
Predicate Diagrams for the Verification of Reactive Systems ............ 380
Dominique Cansell, Dominique M´ery, and Stephan Merz
Modular Verification for a Class of PLTL Properties ................... 398
Pierre-Alain Masson, Hassan Mountassir, and Jacques Julliand
Towards Model Checking Stochastic Process Algebra ................... 420
Holger Hermanns, Joost-Pieter Katoen, Joachim Meyer-Kayser, and
Markus Siegle
Author Index................................................... 441
Assertions
Tony Hoare
Senior Researcher
Microsoft Research Ltd.
1 Guildhall St., Cambridge, CB2 3NH
[email protected]
An assertion is a Boolean formula written in the text of a program, which
the programmer asserts will always be true when that part of the program is
executed. It specifies an internal interface between that part of the program
that comes before it and all that follows it. In the software industry today,
assertions are conditionally compiled in test runs of a program, and help in
the detection and diagnosis of errors. Alan Turing first proposed assertions as
a means of checking a large routine. They were rediscovered independently by
Naurasgeneralisedsnapshots,andbyFloyd,whousedthemtoassignmeanings
toprograms. Floyd suggested that if theinternal assertionswerestrongenough,
they would constitute a formal proof of the correctness of a complete program.
In this lecture, I will summarise the subsequent development of the idea, and
describe some of its practical impact.
In the early seventies, I developed an axiomatic approach for proofs of pro-
grams that use all the main constructions of a high-level programming langu-
age - iterations, local variables, procedures and parameters, recursion, and even
jumps.FollowingDijkstra,Ialwaystookatop-downviewofthetaskofsoftware
construction, with assertions formulated as part of program specification, and
with proofs conducted as part of program design. I hoped that this research
would help to reduce the high costs of programming error, and the high risks of
using computers in critical applications. But the real attraction for me was that
the axioms underlying program proofs would provide an objective and scientific
test of the quality of programming language design: a language described by a
small collection of obvious rules, easily applied, would be better than one that
required many rules with complex side-conditions. In collaboration with Wirth,
we tried out the idea on the Pascal language; and later it inspired the design of
Euclid by a team in Xerox PARC.
In scaling proof methods from small sequential algorithms to large software
systems, it was necessary to extend the power of the assertion language. The
Z specification language was developed by Abrial on the basis of Zermelo’s set
theory, which Frankel showed to be essentially adequate for expression of all
concepts known to mathematics. It should therefore be adequate to express all
the abstractions useful to computing, and prove the correctness of their repre-
sentations. Dijkstra dealt with non-determinism, by imagining the choice to be
exercised maliciously by a demon. Jones and his fellow designers of VDM in-
cluded initial as well as final values of program variables. All these ideas were
successfullytestedbyIBMinspecifyingtheinternalinterfacesofalargesystem,
CICS.
W.Grieskamp,T.Santen,andB.Stoddart(Eds.):IFM2000,LNCS1945,pp.1–2,2000.
(cid:2)c Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg2000