Formal Proof from UML Models

Abstract. We present a practical approach to a formal analysis of UMLbased models. This is achieved by an underlying formal representation in Z, which allows us to pose and discharge conjectures to analyse models. We show how our approach allows us to consistency-check UML models, and model analysis by simply drawing snapshot diagrams

Designing the automatic transformation of visual languages

AbstractThe design process of complex systems requires a precise checking of the functional and dependability attributes of the target design. The growing complexity of systems necessitates the use of formal methods, as the exhaustiveness of checks performed by the traditional simulation and testing is insufficient.For this reason, the mathematical models of various formal verification tools are automatically derived from UML-diagrams of the model by mathematical transformations guaranteeing a complete consistency between the target design and the models of verification and validation tools.In the current paper, a general framework for an automated model transformation system is presented. The method starts from a uniform visual description and a formal proof concept of the particular transformations by integrating the powerful computational paradigm of graph transformation, planner algorithms of artificial intelligence, and various concepts of computer engineering

Collaborative Verification-Driven Engineering of Hybrid Systems

Hybrid systems with both discrete and continuous dynamics are an important model for real-world cyber-physical systems. The key challenge is to ensure their correct functioning w.r.t. safety requirements. Promising techniques to ensure safety seem to be model-driven engineering to develop hybrid systems in a well-defined and traceable manner, and formal verification to prove their correctness. Their combination forms the vision of verification-driven engineering. Often, hybrid systems are rather complex in that they require expertise from many domains (e.g., robotics, control systems, computer science, software engineering, and mechanical engineering). Moreover, despite the remarkable progress in automating formal verification of hybrid systems, the construction of proofs of complex systems often requires nontrivial human guidance, since hybrid systems verification tools solve undecidable problems. It is, thus, not uncommon for development and verification teams to consist of many players with diverse expertise. This paper introduces a verification-driven engineering toolset that extends our previous work on hybrid and arithmetic verification with tools for (i) graphical (UML) and textual modeling of hybrid systems, (ii) exchanging and comparing models and proofs, and (iii) managing verification tasks. This toolset makes it easier to tackle large-scale verification tasks

Using formal metamodels to check consistency of functional views in information systems specification

UML notations require adaptation for applications such as Information Systems (IS). Thus we have defined IS-UML. The purpose of this article is twofold. First, we propose an extension to this language to deal with functional aspects of IS. We use two views to specify IS transactions: the first one is defined as a combination of behavioural UML diagrams (collaboration and state diagrams), and the second one is based on the definition of specific classes of an extended class diagram. The final objective of the article is to consider consistency issues between the various diagrams of an IS-UML specification. In common with other UML languages, we use a metamodel to define IS-UML. We use class diagrams to summarize the metamodel structure and a formal language, B, for the full metamodel. This allows us to formally express consistency checks and mapping rules between specific metamodel concepts. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

An open extensible tool environment for Event-B

Abstract. We consider modelling indispensable for the development of complex systems. Modelling must be carried out in a formal notation to reason and make meaningful conjectures about a model. But formal modelling of complex systems is a difficult task. Even when theorem provers improve further and get more powerful, modelling will remain difficult. The reason for this that modelling is an exploratory activity that requires ingenuity in order to arrive at a meaningful model. We are aware that automated theorem provers can discharge most of the onerous trivial proof obligations that appear when modelling systems. In this article we present a modelling tool that seamlessly integrates modelling and proving similar to what is offered today in modern integrated development environments for programming. The tool is extensible and configurable so that it can be adapted more easily to different application domains and development methods.

Modelling and Refinement in CODA

This paper provides an overview of the CODA framework for modelling and refinement of component-based embedded systems. CODA is an extension of Event-B and UML-B and is supported by a plug-in for the Rodin toolset. CODA augments Event-B with constructs for component-based modelling including components, communications ports, port connectors, timed communications and timing triggers. Component behaviour is specified through a combination of UML-B state machines and Event-B. CODA communications and timing are given an Event-B semantics through translation rules. Refinement is based on Event-B refinement and allows layered construction of CODA models in a consistent way.Comment: In Proceedings Refine 2013, arXiv:1305.563

Metamodel-based model conformance and multiview consistency checking

Model-driven development, using languages such as UML and BON, often makes use of multiple diagrams (e.g., class and sequence diagrams) when modeling systems. These diagrams, presenting different views of a system of interest, may be inconsistent. A metamodel provides a unifying framework in which to ensure and check consistency, while at the same time providing the means to distinguish between valid and invalid models, that is, conformance. Two formal specifications of the metamodel for an object-oriented modeling language are presented, and it is shown how to use these specifications for model conformance and multiview consistency checking. Comparisons are made in terms of completeness and the level of automation each provide for checking multiview consistency and model conformance. The lessons learned from applying formal techniques to the problems of metamodeling, model conformance, and multiview consistency checking are summarized

Assembling the Proofs of Ordered Model Transformations

In model-driven development, an ordered model transformation is a nested set of transformations between source and target classes, in which each transformation is governed by its own pre and post- conditions, but structurally dependent on its parent. Following the proofs-as-model-transformations approach, in this paper we consider a formalisation in Constructive Type Theory of the concepts of model and model transformation, and show how the correctness proofs of potentially large ordered model transformations can be systematically assembled from the proofs of the specifications of their parts, making them easier to derive.Comment: In Proceedings FESCA 2013, arXiv:1302.478

An Institutional Framework for Heterogeneous Formal Development in UML

We present a framework for formal software development with UML. In contrast to previous approaches that equip UML with a formal semantics, we follow an institution based heterogeneous approach. This can express suitable formal semantics of the different UML diagram types directly, without the need to map everything to one specific formalism (let it be first-order logic or graph grammars). We show how different aspects of the formal development process can be coherently formalised, ranging from requirements over design and Hoare-style conditions on code to the implementation itself. The framework can be used to verify consistency of different UML diagrams both horizontally (e.g., consistency among various requirements) as well as vertically (e.g., correctness of design or implementation w.r.t. the requirements)