Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

VeriTech: a framework for translating among model description notations

  • Regular Contributions
  • Published:
International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The reasons for translating a description of a model in one notation into another are reviewed. Such model descriptions are used as input to formal verification tools or as design-level descriptions for protocols or hardware. Translations are used to produce input to a different tool to verify properties not verified in the source model, and to connect notations that have no associated verification tool to those that do.

The VeriTech framework for translation is described. A system being analyzed is seen as a collection of versions, along with a characterization of how the versions are related, and properties known to be true of each version. The versions are given in different notations connected through a core notation by compilers from and to the notations of existing tools and specification methods. The reasons that translations cannot always be exact are analyzed. To facilitate optimizations during retranslation, error tracing, and analysis, additional information is gathered during translation, and is also included with the system being analyzed.

The concept of a faithful relation among models and families of properties true of those models is presented. In this framework families of properties are provided with uniform syntactic transformations, in addition to the translations of the models. This framework generalizes common instances of relations among translations previously treated in an ad hoc way. The example of refinement translations is shown in detail. The classes of properties that can be faithful for a given translation provide a measure of the usefulness of the translation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Katz, S.: Faithful translations among models and specifications. In: Proceedings of FME2001: Formal Methods for Increasing Software Productivity, vol. 2021 of LNCS, pp. 419–434. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2001)

  2. Grumberg, O., Katz, S.: VeriTech: translating among specifications and verification tools–design principles. In: Third Austria-Israel Symposium Software for Communication Technologies, April 1999 pp. 104–109, At http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/Labs/ssdl/veritech/

  3. Korenblat, K., Grumberg, O., Katz, S.: Translations between textual transition systems and Petri nets. In: Proceedings of third IFM conference, vol. 2355 of LNCS, pp. 339–359. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York (2002)

  4. Katz, S., Grumberg, O.: A framework for translating models and specifications. In: Proceedings of third integrated formal methods (IFM) Conference, vol. 2355 of LNCS, pp. 145–164. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2002)

  5. Berg, M., Katz, S.: Property transformations for translations. Technical Report CS-2002-05, Computer Science Department, The Technion (2002)

  6. Burch J.R., Clarke E.M., McMillan K.L., Dill D., Hwang L.J. (1992). Symbolic model checking: 1020 states and beyond. Inf. Comput. 98:142–170

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. McMillan, K.L.: Symbolic model checking: an approach to the state explosion problem. Kluwer (1993)

  8. Owre S., Rushby J., Shankar N., von Henke F. (1995). Formal verification for fault-tolerant architectures: prolegomena to the design of PVS. IEEE Trans. Softw Eng. 21(2):107–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ip C.N., Dill D.L. (1996). Better verification through symmetry. For. Methods Syst Des. 9: 41–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Holzmann G. (1991). Design and Validation of Computer Protocols. Prentice-Hall International, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  11. Holzmann, G.J., Peled, D.: The state of SPIN. In: Proceedings of CAV96, vol. 1102 of LNCS, pp. 385–389. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1996)

  12. Kurshan R.P. (1994). Computer-aided Verification of Coordinating Processes. Princeton University Press, Primeton

    Google Scholar 

  13. Reisig W. (1998). Elements of distributed algorithms– modeling and analysis with Petri Nets. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Bolognesi, T., Legemaat, J.v.d., Vissars C.A. (eds.): LOTO Sphere: software development with LOTOS. Kluwer oston, (1994)

  15. Bjorner, N., Browne, A., Chang, E., Colon, M., Kapur, A., Manna, Z., Simpa, H.B., Uribe, T.E.: Step: The stanford temporal prover - user’s manual. Technical Report STAN-CS-TR-95-1562, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, November (1995)

  16. Manna Z., Pnueli A. (1992). The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems: Specification. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hatcliff, J., Dwyer, M.: Using the bandera tool set to model-check properties of concurrent java software. In: International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR), June 2001. Invited tutorial paper

  18. Demartini, C., Iosif, R., Sisto, R.: dSPIN: a dynamic extension of SPIN. In: SPIN, pp. 261–276 (1999)

  19. Havelund K., Pressburger T. (2000). Model checking JAVA programs using JAVA PathFinder. Int. J. Softw. Tools. Technol. Transf. 2(4):366–381

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Brat, G., Havelund, K., Park, S., Visser, W.: Model checking programs. In: In IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), September (2000)

  21. Corbett J.C. (1996). Evaluating deadlock detection methods for concurrent software. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 22(3):161–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bensalem, S., Ganesh, V., Lakhnech, Y., Muñoz, C., Owre, S., Rueß, H., Rushby, J., Rusu, V., Saïdi, H., Shankar, , E., Tiwari, A.: An overview of SAL. In: Michael Holloway, C. (ed.) LFM 2000: Fifth NASA Langley Formal Methods Workshop, pp. 187–196, Hampton June 2000. Available at http://shemesh.larc.nasa.gov/fm/Lfm2000/Proc/

  23. Bozga, M., Fernandez, J., Ghirva, L., Graf, S., Krimm, J., Mounier, L.: IF: a validation environment for timed asynchronous systems. In: CAV 2000, LNCS 1855, pp. 543–547, July (2000) http://www-verimag.imag.fr/DIST_SYS/IF/index.html

  24. http://wwwbrauer.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/gruppen/theorie/KIT/

  25. Garavel, H., Lang, F.,Mateescu, R.: An overview of CADP2001. In: EASST Newsletter, pp. 13–24 (2002)

  26. Margaria T. (2005). Web services-based tool integration in the ETI platform. J. Softw. Syst. Model. (SoSyM) 4:141–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Magaria, T., Nagel, R., Steffan, B.: Remote integration and coordination of verification tools in JETI. In: International Conference on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS05), pp. 431–436 (2005)

  28. http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/Labs/ssdl/veritech/

  29. Clarke E.M., Grumberg O., Peled D.A. (1999). Model checking. MIT press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  30. Katz, S. Refinement with global equivalence proofs in temporal logic. In: Peled, D., Pratt, V., Holzmann, G. (eds.) Partial Order Methods in Verification, DIMACS Series in Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 29, pp. 59–78. American Mathematical Society (1997)

  31. Harel D. (1987). Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comput. Program. 8:231–274

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Harel D., Lachover H., Naamad A., Pnueli A., Politi M., Sherman R. Shtull-Trauring A., Trakhtenbrot M. (1990). Statemate: a working environment for the development of complex reactive systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 16(4):403–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hoare C.A.R., He Jifeng. (1998). Unifying Theories of Programming. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  34. Potter B., Sinclair J., Till D. (1991). An Introduction to Formal Specification and Z. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Bolognesi T., Brinksma E. (1987). Introduction to the ISO specification language LOTOS. Comput. Netw. ISDN Syst. 14:25–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hughes G.E., Cresswell M.J. (1977). Introduction to Modal Logic. Methuen, London

    Google Scholar 

  37. Grumberg O., Long D.E. (1994). Model checking and modular verification. ACM Trans. on Program. Lang. Syst. 16(3):843–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Department, The Technion, Haifa, Israel

    Orna Grumberg & Shmuel Katz

Authors
  1. Orna Grumberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shmuel Katz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Orna Grumberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grumberg, O., Katz, S. VeriTech: a framework for translating among model description notations. Int J Softw Tools Technol Transfer 9, 119–132 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-006-0003-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-006-0003-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation