Towards model checking executable UML specifications in mCRL2

Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 83-90

  Hansen, Helle Hvid ^a   Ketema, Jeroen ^b   Luttik, Bas ^a   Mousavi, MohammadReza ^a   van de Pol, Jaco ^b  

^a EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Executable UML; Model checking; Process algebra; Software verification and validation; Specification languages

Indexed keywords

ALGEBRAIC SPECIFICATION LANGUAGES; CLASS DIAGRAMS; EXECUTABLE UML; INTERLOCKINGS; LONG-TERM GOALS; PROCESS ALGEBRA; PROCESS ALGEBRAS; RAILWAY INTERLOCKING SYSTEM; SAFETY PROPERTY; SOFTWARE VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION; STATE MACHINE; TOOLSETS;

ALGEBRA; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; INTERLOCKING SIGNALS; LINGUISTICS; QUERY LANGUAGES; SPECIFICATION LANGUAGES; SPECIFICATIONS;

MODEL CHECKING;

EID: 77949321817     PISSN: 16145046     EISSN: 16145054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11334-009-0116-1     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Alur R, Yannakakis M (2001) Model checking of hierarchical state machines. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 23(3): 273-303.
2. Baier C, Katoen J-P (2008) Principles of model checking. The MIT Press, New York.
3. Bergstra JA, Klop JW (1984) Process algebra for synchronous communicati. Inf Control 60(1-3): 109-137.
4. Blom S, van de Pol J (2008) Symbolic reachability for process algebras with recursive data types. In: Proceedings on theoretical aspects of computing (ICTAC 2008). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5160. Springer, Berlin, pp 81-95.
5. Blom SCC, van de Pol JC, Weber M (2009) Bridging the gap between enumerative and symbolic model checkers. Technical Report TR-CTIT-09-30, CTIT, University of Twente, Enschede.
6. Cimatti A, Giunchiglia F, Mongardi G, Romano D, Torielli F, Traverso P (1998) Formal verification of a railway interlocking system using model checking. Formal Aspects Comput 10(4): 361-380.
7. Damm W, Josko B, Pnueli A, Votintseva A (2005) A discrete-time UML semantics for concurrency and communication in safety-critical applications. Sci Comput Program 55: 81-155.
8. Eriksson L-H (1996) Specifying railway interlocking requirements for practical use. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on computer safety, reliability and security (SAFECOMP'96). Springer, Berlin.
9. Xie F, Levin V, Browne J (2001) Model checking for an executable subset of UML. In: 16th IEEE international conference on automated software engineering (ASE 2001), pp 333-336.
10. Fokkink W (1996) Safety criteria for the vital processor interlocking at Hoorn-Kersenboogerd. In: 5th conference on computers in railways (COMPRAIL'96). Volume I: railway systems and management.
11. Gnesi S, Latella D, Lenzini G, Abbaneo C, Amendola AM, Marmo P (2000) An automatic SPIN validation of a safety critical railway control system. In: Proceedings of the 2000 international conference on dependable systems and networks. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 119-124.
12. Groote JF, Mathijssen A, Reniers MA, Usenko YS, van Weerdenburg M (2007) The formal specification language mCRL2. In: Proceedings of methods for modelling software systems, Dagstuhl seminar proceedings, vol 06351.
13. Hu Z, Shatz SM (2006) Explicit modeling of semantics associated with composite states in UML statecharts. J Autom Softw Eng 13(4): 423-467.
14. KnowGravity (2008) Cassandra/xUML user's guide. http://www. knowgravity. com/eng/value/cassandra. htm.
15. Mellor SJ, Balcer M (2002) Executable UML: a foundation for model-driven architecture. Addison Wesley, Reading.
16. Object Management Group (2008) Semantics of a foundational subset for executable UML models. http://www. omg. org/spec/FUML/1. 0/Beta1/PDF/. Accessed Nov 2008.
17. Object Management Group (2009) OMG unified modeling language superstructure version 2. 2. http://www. omg. org/spec/UML/2. 2/Superstructure/PDF/. Accessed Feb 2009.
18. Purandar B, Ramesh S (2004) Model checking of statechart models: survey and research directions. http://arxiv. org/abs/cs. SE/0407038. Accessed July 2004.
19. Turner E, Treharne H, Schneider S, Evans N (2008) Automatic generation of CSP {double pipe} B skeletons from xUML models. In: Proc. of Theoretical Aspects of Computing (ICTAC 2008), pp. 364-379.
20. von der Beeck M (2001) Formalization of UML-statecharts. In: Proceedings UML 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2185. Springer, Berlin, pp 406-421.
21. Winter K, Robinson NJ (2003) Modelling large railway interlockings and model checking small ones. In: ACSC '03: Proceedings of the 26th Australasian computer science conference, pp 309-316. Australian Computer Society, Inc.
22. Yeung WL, Leung KRPH, Wang J, Dong W (2005) Improvements towards formalizing UML state diagrams in CSP. In: Proceedings of the 12th Asia-Pacific software engineering conference (APSEC 2005). IEEE Computer Society.