Supporting a Multi-formalism Model Driven Development Process with Model Transformation, a TOPCASED implementation

International audienceThe ASSERT (Automated proof based System and Software Engineering for Real-Time Applications) European Integrated Project (IST-FP6-004033, http://www.assert-project.net/) defined and experimented a multi formalism Model Driven Engineering (MDE) process, enforcing an approach with separated specification and refinement of functional and non-functional properties.• Functional specification, design and development is based on UML profiles to support AADL concepts [2] and behavioural specification.• Real time Architecture properties are based on extensions targeting Ravenscar Computing execution Model (RCM see [6]) constraints upon component interface and ports.• Model transformation is supporting correctness preserving rules towards a Virtual Machine execution environment or a verification dedicated environment.A tool chain called IDEA (Integrated Development Environment for ASSERT) supporting the process was developed by the CS ASSERT team on top of the Eclipse/TOPCASED environment allowing:• Integrated use of several formalisms in a development life-cycle (UML, AADL, IF[4]) .• Model transformation from UML to IF, AADL to RCM and RCM to Ada• Automated code generationThe approach experimented allows combined use of best suited formalisms and features for MDE developments. The TOPCASED tool proved to be a unique integrated toolset for prototyping UML and meta models supporting tools.The main feedback gained from applying the notations and approach on small to medium case studies is that UML profiling is not scalable, and that use of several Domain Specific Languages (DSL) seems far more suitable. Semantic clashes can be limited by raising the abstraction level, and by partitioning properties for verification

UML 2.0 interactions with OCL/RT constraints

The use of formal methods at early stages of software development contributes to the reliability and robustness of the system to be constructed. Int his context, real-time system development benefits from the construction of behavioral models in order to verify the correct satisfaction of time constraints. The Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a software specification language widely used by the industry and the academia. Nevertheless, its version 2.0 lacks a formal semantics for the development of provably-correct models. In addition, its constraint specification language, Object Constraint Language (OCL), has limitations for its use in behavioral models of real-time systems. This work concerns the inter-component behavioral specification of real-time systems. Such behavior is described using the UML 2.0 Interactions language extended for the inclusion of time constraints using the OCL for Real Time (OCL/RT) language. The main problem addressed in this work is the definition of a formal semantics for the fusion of both languages. The semantics allows recognizing valid and invalid behaviors of a system with time constraints. Intended for formal verification, an analysis of the properties derived from the semantics is also done. In particular, the notions of refinement of interactions and refinement of constraints are explored. Finally, the proposal is compared with related works and its practical application is studied in order to analyze its benefits and weaknesses. This work contributes to the formalization of concepts widely used in practice and, inconsequence, to its inclusion in modeling and formal reasoning tools. More-over, the expressivity of the UML 2.0 Interactions language is augmented in order to support complex real-time constraints, not expressable until this moment

Automatic Translation of UML Sequence Diagrams into PEPA Models

The UML profile for modeling and analysis of real time and embedded systems (MARTE) provides a powerful, standardised framework for the specification of non-functional properties of UML models. In this paper we present an automatic procedure to derive PEPA process algebra models from sequence diagrams (SD) to carry out quantitative evaluation. PEPA has recently been enriched with a fluid-flow semantics facilitating the analysis of models of a scale and complexity which would defeat Markovian analysis

Early Analysis of Ambient Systems SysML Properties using OMEGA2-IFx

International audienceFormal methods provide tools to verify the consistency and correctness of a specification with respect to the desired properties of the system. This verification is important as the development of an AAL (Ambient Assisted Living) system involves different technologies (medical services, surveillance cameras, intelligent devices, etc.) requiring a strong consistency checking between models. We illustrate in this paper how we prove some of the properties of the system before the development even starts. To model the AAL system, we use the SysML language. In terms of tools, we used Rational Rhapsody in combination with the OMEGA2 profile which is an executable Uml/SysML profile used for the formal specification and validation of critical real-time systems. This profile is supported by the IFx toolset which provides mechanisms for the model simulation and properties verification of the AAL system

TURTLE-P: a UML profile for the formal validation of critical and distributed systems

The timed UML and RT-LOTOS environment, or TURTLE for short, extends UML class and activity diagrams with composition and temporal operators. TURTLE is a real-time UML profile with a formal semantics expressed in RT-LOTOS. Further, it is supported by a formal validation toolkit. This paper introduces TURTLE-P, an extended profile no longer restricted to the abstract modeling of distributed systems. Indeed, TURTLE-P addresses the concrete descriptions of communication architectures, including quality of service parameters (delay, jitter, etc.). This new profile enables co-design of hardware and software components with extended UML component and deployment diagrams. Properties of these diagrams can be evaluated and/or validated thanks to the formal semantics given in RT-LOTOS. The application of TURTLE-P is illustrated with a telecommunication satellite system

Automated Mapping of UML Activity Diagrams to Formal Specifications for Supporting Containment Checking

Business analysts and domain experts are often sketching the behaviors of a software system using high-level models that are technology- and platform-independent. The developers will refine and enrich these high-level models with technical details. As a consequence, the refined models can deviate from the original models over time, especially when the two kinds of models evolve independently. In this context, we focus on behavior models; that is, we aim to ensure that the refined, low-level behavior models conform to the corresponding high-level behavior models. Based on existing formal verification techniques, we propose containment checking as a means to assess whether the system's behaviors described by the low-level models satisfy what has been specified in the high-level counterparts. One of the major obstacles is how to lessen the burden of creating formal specifications of the behavior models as well as consistency constraints, which is a tedious and error-prone task when done manually. Our approach presented in this paper aims at alleviating the aforementioned challenges by considering the behavior models as verification inputs and devising automated mappings of behavior models onto formal properties and descriptions that can be directly used by model checkers. We discuss various challenges in our approach and show the applicability of our approach in illustrative scenarios.Comment: In Proceedings FESCA 2014, arXiv:1404.043

QuantUM: Quantitative Safety Analysis of UML Models

When developing a safety-critical system it is essential to obtain an assessment of different design alternatives. In particular, an early safety assessment of the architectural design of a system is desirable. In spite of the plethora of available formal quantitative analysis methods it is still difficult for software and system architects to integrate these techniques into their every day work. This is mainly due to the lack of methods that can be directly applied to architecture level models, for instance given as UML diagrams. Also, it is necessary that the description methods used do not require a profound knowledge of formal methods. Our approach bridges this gap and improves the integration of quantitative safety analysis methods into the development process. All inputs of the analysis are specified at the level of a UML model. This model is then automatically translated into the analysis model, and the results of the analysis are consequently represented on the level of the UML model. Thus the analysis model and the formal methods used during the analysis are hidden from the user. We illustrate the usefulness of our approach using an industrial strength case study.Comment: In Proceedings QAPL 2011, arXiv:1107.074

Transformation of UML Behavioral Diagrams to Support Software Model Checking

Unified Modeling Language (UML) is currently accepted as the standard for modeling (object-oriented) software, and its use is increasing in the aerospace industry. Verification and Validation of complex software developed according to UML is not trivial due to complexity of the software itself, and the several different UML models/diagrams that can be used to model behavior and structure of the software. This paper presents an approach to transform up to three different UML behavioral diagrams (sequence, behavioral state machines, and activity) into a single Transition System to support Model Checking of software developed in accordance with UML. In our approach, properties are formalized based on use case descriptions. The transformation is done for the NuSMV model checker, but we see the possibility in using other model checkers, such as SPIN. The main contribution of our work is the transformation of a non-formal language (UML) to a formal language (language of the NuSMV model checker) towards a greater adoption in practice of formal methods in software development.Comment: In Proceedings FESCA 2014, arXiv:1404.043