Incompleteness of relational simulations in the blocking paradigm

Refinement is the notion of development between formal specifications For specifications given in a relational formalism downward and upward simulations are the standard method to verify that a refinement holds their usefulness based upon their soundness and joint completeness This is known to be true for total relational specifications and has been claimed to hold for partial relational specifications in both the non-blocking and blocking interpretations In this paper we show that downward and upward simulations in the blocking interpretation where domains are guards are not Jointly complete This contradicts earlier claims in the literature We illustrate this with an example (based on one recently constructed by Reeves and Streader) and then construct a proof to show why Joint completeness fails in general (C) 2010 Elsevier B V All rights reserve

Verifying UML/OCL operation contracts

In current model-driven development approaches, software models are the primary artifacts of the development process. Therefore, assessment of their correctness is a key issue to ensure the quality of the final application. Research on model consistency has focused mostly on the models' static aspects. Instead, this paper addresses the verification of their dynamic aspects, expressed as a set of operations defined by means of pre/postcondition contracts. This paper presents an automatic method based on Constraint Programming to verify UML models extended with OCL constraints and operation contracts. In our approach, both static and dynamic aspects are translated into a Constraint Satisfaction Problem. Then, compliance of the operations with respect to several correctness properties such as operation executability or determinism are formally verified

Towards Practical Graph-Based Verification for an Object-Oriented Concurrency Model

To harness the power of multi-core and distributed platforms, and to make the development of concurrent software more accessible to software engineers, different object-oriented concurrency models such as SCOOP have been proposed. Despite the practical importance of analysing SCOOP programs, there are currently no general verification approaches that operate directly on program code without additional annotations. One reason for this is the multitude of partially conflicting semantic formalisations for SCOOP (either in theory or by-implementation). Here, we propose a simple graph transformation system (GTS) based run-time semantics for SCOOP that grasps the most common features of all known semantics of the language. This run-time model is implemented in the state-of-the-art GTS tool GROOVE, which allows us to simulate, analyse, and verify a subset of SCOOP programs with respect to deadlocks and other behavioural properties. Besides proposing the first approach to verify SCOOP programs by automatic translation to GTS, we also highlight our experiences of applying GTS (and especially GROOVE) for specifying semantics in the form of a run-time model, which should be transferable to GTS models for other concurrent languages and libraries.Comment: In Proceedings GaM 2015, arXiv:1504.0244

Life of occam-Pi

This paper considers some questions prompted by a brief review of the history of computing. Why is programming so hard? Why is concurrency considered an “advanced” subject? What’s the matter with Objects? Where did all the Maths go? In searching for answers, the paper looks at some concerns over fundamental ideas within object orientation (as represented by modern programming languages), before focussing on the concurrency model of communicating processes and its particular expression in the occam family of languages. In that focus, it looks at the history of occam, its underlying philosophy (Ockham’s Razor), its semantic foundation on Hoare’s CSP, its principles of process oriented design and its development over almost three decades into occam-? (which blends in the concurrency dynamics of Milner’s ?-calculus). Also presented will be an urgent need for rationalisation – occam-? is an experiment that has demonstrated significant results, but now needs time to be spent on careful review and implementing the conclusions of that review. Finally, the future is considered. In particular, is there a future

Towards Symbolic Model-Based Mutation Testing: Combining Reachability and Refinement Checking

Model-based mutation testing uses altered test models to derive test cases that are able to reveal whether a modelled fault has been implemented. This requires conformance checking between the original and the mutated model. This paper presents an approach for symbolic conformance checking of action systems, which are well-suited to specify reactive systems. We also consider nondeterminism in our models. Hence, we do not check for equivalence, but for refinement. We encode the transition relation as well as the conformance relation as a constraint satisfaction problem and use a constraint solver in our reachability and refinement checking algorithms. Explicit conformance checking techniques often face state space explosion. First experimental evaluations show that our approach has potential to outperform explicit conformance checkers.Comment: In Proceedings MBT 2012, arXiv:1202.582