Properties of Behavioural Model Merging

Constructing comprehensive operational models of intended system behaviour is a complex and costly task. Consequently, practitioners adopt techniques that support partial behaviour decription such as scenario-based specifications, and focus on elaborating these descriptions iteratively. In previous work, we show how this process can be formally supported by Modal Transition Systems (MTSs), observational refinement, and model merging. In this paper, we study a number of properties of merging MTSs and give insights on the implications these results have on engineering and reasoning about behaviour models. We illustrate the utility of our results on a case study.

[1]  Johann Schumann,et al.  Generating statechart designs from scenarios , 2000, Proceedings of the 2000 International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2000 the New Millennium.

[2]  Fei Xie,et al.  Automatic Creation of Environment Models via Training , 2004, TACAS.

[3]  Barry Boehm,et al.  Balancing Agility and Dis-cipline: A Guide for the Perplexed , 2003 .

[4]  Orna Grumberg,et al.  Monotonic Abstraction-Refinement for CTL , 2004, TACAS.

[5]  Dimitra Giannakopoulou,et al.  Fluent model checking for event-based systems , 2003, ESEC/FSE-11.

[6]  Mehrdad Sabetzadeh,et al.  Analysis of inconsistency in graph-based viewpoints: a category-theoretical approach , 2003, 18th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2003. Proceedings..

[7]  Matthias Jarke.  Cooperative Requirements Engineering with Scenarios , 1999, RE.

[8]  Bashar Nuseibeh,et al.  Managing inconsistent specifications: reasoning, analysis, and action , 1998, TSEM.

[9]  Robin Milner,et al.  Communication and concurrency , 1989, PHI Series in computer science.

[10]  Greg Brunet,et al.  A CHARACTERIZATION OF MERGING PARTIAL BEHAVIOURAL MODELS , 2006 .

[11]  K. Larsen.  A Constraint Oriented Proof Methodology based on Modal Transition Systems , 1994 .

[12]  Kim G. Larsen,et al.  Equation solving using modal transition systems , 1990, [1990] Proceedings. Fifth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[13]  Radha Jagadeesan,et al.  Model checking partial state spaces with 3-valued temporal logics , 2001 .

[14]  Jeff Magee,et al.  Concurrency - state models and Java programs , 2006 .

[15]  Sebastián Uchitel,et al.  Behaviour model elaboration using partial labelled transition systems , 2003, ESEC/FSE-11.

[16]  Thomas W. Reps,et al.  Integrating noninterfering versions of programs , 1989, TOPL.

[17]  Orna Grumberg,et al.  Abstract interpretation of reactive systems , 1997, TOPL.

[18]  Kim G. Larsen,et al.  A modal process logic , 1988, [1988] Proceedings. Third Annual Information Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[19]  Radha Jagadeesan,et al.  Modal Transition Systems: A Foundation for Three-Valued Program Analysis , 2001, ESOP.

[20]  Colin Stirling,et al.  Modal and Temporal Logics for Processes , 1996, Banff Higher Order Workshop.

[21]  Marsha Chechik,et al.  Multi-valued symbolic model-checking , 2003, TSEM.

[22]  David Harel,et al.  LSCs: Breathing Life into Message Sequence Charts , 1999, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[23]  Robert M. Keller,et al.  Formal verification of parallel programs , 1976, CACM.

[24]  D. Kozen.  Results on the Propositional µ-Calculus , 1982 .

[25]  Radha Jagadeesan,et al.  A domain equation for refinement of partial systems , 2004, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science.

[26]  Marsha Chechik,et al.  Merging partial behavioural models , 2004, SIGSOFT '04/FSE-12.

[27]  Marsha Chechik,et al.  A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints , 2001, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2001.

[28]  Morris Sloman,et al.  CONIC: an integrated approach to distributed computer control systems , 1983 .

[29]  Altaf Hussain,et al.  On model checking multiple hybrid views , 2008, Theor. Comput. Sci..