Skip to main content

Formalizing Timing Diagram Requirements in Discrete Duration Calculus

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 10469))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Several temporal logics have been proposed to formalise timing diagram requirements over hardware and embedded controllers. However, succintness and visual structure of a timing diagram are not adequately captured by their formulae [6]. Interval temporal logic QDDC is a highly succint and visual notation for specifying patterns of behaviours [15]. In this paper, we propose a practically useful notation called SeCeNL which enhances the quantifier and negation free fragment of QDDC with features of nominals and limited liveness. We show that for SeCeNL, the satisfiability and model checking problems have elementary complexity as compared to the non-elementary complexity for the full logic QDDC. Next we show that timing diagrams can be naturally, compositionally and succintly formalized in SeCeNL as compared with PSL-Sugar and MTL. We give a linear time translation from timing diagrams to SeCeNL. As our second main result, we propose a linear time translation of SeCeNL into QDDC. This allows QDDC tools such as DCVALID [15, 16] and DCSynth [17] to be used for checking consistency of timing diagram requirements as well as for automatic synthesis of property monitors and controllers. We give an example of a minepump controller to illustrate our tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hence the logic is called QDDC which abbreviates Quantified Discrete Duration Calculus.

  2. 2.

    The illustration was made with WaveDrom and due to its limitation on naming nominals we were forced to rename the nominals u and v in Q as a and b respectively.

References

  1. Allen, J.F.: Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Comm. ACM 26(11), 832–843 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alpern, B., Schneider, F.B.: Recognizing safety and liveness. Distrib. Comput. 2(3), 117–126 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Amla, N., Emerson, E.A., Kurshan, R.P., Namjoshi, K.S.: Model checking synchronous timing diagrams. In: FMCAD 2000, pp. 283–298 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Babu, A., Pandya, P.K.: Chop expressions and discrete duration calculus. In: Modern Applications of Automata Theory, pp. 229–256 (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Chapyzhenka, A., Probell, J.: Wavedrom: rendering beautiful waveforms from plain text. Synopsys User Group (2016). http://wavedrom.com/images/SNUG2016_WaveDrom.pdf

  6. Chockler, H., Fisler, K.: Temporal modalities for concisely capturing timing diagrams. In: Borrione, D., Paul, W. (eds.) CHARME 2005. LNCS, vol. 3725, pp. 176–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi:10.1007/11560548_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Damm, W., Harel, D.: LSCs: breathing life into message sequence charts. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 19(1), 45–80 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Eisner, C., Fisman, D.: Temporal logic made practical. In: Handbook of Model Checking. Springer (2016, expected). http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~fisman/documents/EF_HBMC14.pdf

  9. Fisler, K.: Timing diagrams: formalization and algorithmic verification. J. Logic Lang. Inform. 8(3), 323–361 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Fisler, K.: Two-dimensional regular expressions for compositional bus protocols. In: FMCAD 2007, pp. 154–157 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Franceschet, M., de Rijke, M., Schlingloff, B.: Hybrid logics on linear structures: expressivity and complexity. In: TIME-ICTL 2003, pp. 166–173 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kesten, Y., Pnueli, A.: A compositional approach to CTL* verification. Theor. Comp. Sci. 331(2–3), 397–428 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Matteplackel, R.M., Pandya, P.K., Wakankar, A.: Formalizing timing diagram requirements in discrete duration calulus. CoRR abs/1705.04510 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pandya, P.K., Ramakrishna, Y.S., Shyamasundar, R.K.: A compositional semantics of esterel in duration calculus. In: AMAST 1995 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pandya, P.K.: Specifying and deciding quantified discrete-time duration calculus formulae using DCVALID. In: RTTOOLS 2001, Affiliated with CONCUR (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pandya, P.K.: Model checking CTL*[DC]. In: Margaria, T., Yi, W. (eds.) TACAS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2031, pp. 559–573. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi:10.1007/3-540-45319-9_38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Wakankar, A., Pandya, P.K., Matteplackel, R.M.: DCSynth: guided reactive synthesis with soft requirements and performance measurement. CoRR (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  18. WaveDrom: Wavedrom user manual (2016). http://wavedrom.com/tutorial.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paritosh K. Pandya .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Matteplackel, R.M., Pandya, P.K., Wakankar, A. (2017). Formalizing Timing Diagram Requirements in Discrete Duration Calculus. In: Cimatti, A., Sirjani, M. (eds) Software Engineering and Formal Methods. SEFM 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10469. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66197-1_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66197-1_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66196-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66197-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics