Your browser does not support JavaScript!
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

Towards automated verification of layered graph transformation specifications

Towards automated verification of layered graph transformation specifications

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
£12.50
(plus tax if applicable)
Add to cart
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for £75.00
(plus taxes if applicable)
Add to cart

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Name:*
Email:*
Your details
Name:*
Email:*
Department:*
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
 
 
 
 
 
IET Software — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

  • Author(s): V. Rafe 1 ; A.T. Rahmani 1 ; L. Baresi 2 ; P. Spoletini 3
    • View affiliations
    • Affiliations: 1: Department of Computer Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
      2: Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
      3: Dipartimento di Scienze della Cultura, Politiche e dell'Informazione, Università dell'Insubria, Como, Italy
  • Source: Volume 3, Issue 4, August 2009, p. 276 – 291
    DOI:  10.1049/iet-sen.2008.0059 , Print ISSN 1751-8806, Online ISSN 1751-8814
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology
Published

Graph transformation systems have recently become more and more popular as a general formal modelling language. It is a suitable formalism for modelling different systems like distributed and complex systems. However, modelling must be complemented with proper analysis capabilities to let the user understand how designed models behave and whether stated requirements are fulfilled and model checking has proven to be a viable solution for this purpose. The authors propose an efficient solution for model checking attributed typed and layered graph transformation systems. Layered graph transformation systems are a powerful formalism to formally model different systems like hierarchical systems. In our proposal, AGG layered graph transformation specifications are translated to Bandera intermediate representation (BIR) – the input language of a Bogor model checker – and then Bogor verifies the model against some interesting properties defined by combining LTL (linear temporal logic) and special graph rules. The experimental results are encouraging and show that in most cases our proposal improves existing approaches, in terms of both performance and expressiveness.

Inspec keywords: graph theory; specification languages; formal verification; formal languages; formal specification

Other keywords: formal modelling language; Bogor model checker; model checking; linear temporal logic; Bandera intermediate representation; layered graph transformation specification; special graph rules

Subjects: Formal methods; Combinatorial mathematics

References

    1. 1)
      • Schmidt, Á., Varró, D.: `CheckVML: A tool for model checking visual modeling languages', Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Unified Modeling Language (UML), 2003, p. 92–95, (LNCS, 2863).
    2. 2)
      • Robby, D.M., Bogor, H.J.: `An extensible and highly-modular software model checking framework', Proc. 9th European Software Engineering Conf., 2003, p. 267–276.
    3. 3)
      • AGG: tfs.cs.tu-berlin.de/agg/.
    4. 4)
      • Engels, G., Soltenborn, C., Wehrheim, H.: `Analysis of UML activities using dynamic meta modeling', Proc. 9th IFIP Int. Conf. Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems (FMOODS), p. 76–90, (LNCS, 4468).
    5. 5)
      • Anderade, L., Baldan, P., Baumeister, H.: `AGILE: software architecture for mobility', Proc. 16th Int. Workshop on Algebraic Development Techniques, 2003, p. 1–33.
    6. 6)
      • Rensink, A., Schmidt, Á., Varró, D.: `Model checking graph transformations: a comparison of two approaches', Proc. Second Int. Conf. Graph Transformation (ICGT), 2004, p. 226–241, (LNCS, 3256).
    7. 7)
      • Schmidt, Á.: `Model checking of visual modeling languages', 2004, Master's, Budapest University of Technology, Hungary.
    8. 8)
      • Rensink, A.: `The GROOVE simulator: a tool for state space generation', Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance (AGTIVE), 2004, p. 479–485, (LNCS, 3062).
    9. 9)
      • Hausmann, J.H., Heckel, R., Taentzer, G.: `Detection of conflicting functional requirements in a use case-driven approach: a static analysis technique based on graph transformation', Proc. Int. Computer Software Engineering (ICSE), 2002, p. 105–115.
    10. 10)
      • The Murϕ. Model Checker: http://verify.stanford.edu/dill/murphi.html.
    11. 11)
      • Hausmann, J.H.: `Dynamic meta modeling: a semantics description technique for visual modeling languages', 2005, PhD, University of Paderborn, Germany.
    12. 12)
      • Gyapay, S., Schmidt, Á., Varró, D.: `Joint optimization and reachability analysis in graph transformation systems with time', In the Int. Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques, 2004, p. 137–147, (ENTCS, 109).
    13. 13)
      • Kuske, S.: `A formal semantics of UML state machines based on structured graph transformation', Proc. UML, 2001, p. 241–256, (LNCS, 2185).
    14. 14)
      • Corbett, J.C., Dwyer, M.B., Hatcliff, J.: `Bandera: extracting finite-state models from Java Source Code', Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. Software Engineering, 2000, p. 439–448.
    15. 15)
      • L. Baresi , R. Heckel , S. Thöne , D. Varró . Style-based modeling and refinement of service-oriented architectures: a graph transformation-based approach. J. Softw. Syst. Model. , 187 - 207
    16. 16)
      • Baresi, L., Heckel, R.: `Tutorial introduction to graph transformation: a software engineering perspective', Proc. First Int. Conf. Graph Transformation (ICGT), 2002, p. 402–429, (LNCS, 2505).
    17. 17)
      • Baresi, L., Rafe, V., Rahmani, A.T., Spoletini, P.: `An efficient solution for model checking graph transformation systems', 3rdWorkshop on Graph Transformation for Verification and Concurrency, 2008, p. 3–21, (ENTCS, 213).
    18. 18)
      • Compton, K., Gurevich, Y., Huggins, J., Shen, W.: `An automatic verification tool for UML', CSE-TR-423–00, Technical Report, 2000.
    19. 19)
      • H. Ehrig , G. Engels , H. Kreowski , G. Rozenberg . (1999) Handbook on graph grammars and computing by graph transformation. vol. 2: Applications, languages and tools.
    20. 20)
      • D. Jackson . (2006) Software abstractions: logic, language, and analysis.
    21. 21)
      • A.P.L. Ferreira , L. Foss , L. Ribeiro . Formal verification of object-oriented graph grammars specifications. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. , 101 - 114
    22. 22)
      • Bogor extensions for LTL checking: projects.cis.ksu.edu/projects/gudangbogor/.
    23. 23)
      • Baresi, L., Heckel, R., Thöne, S., Varró, D.: `Modeling and validation of service oriented architectures: application vs. style', Proc. European Software Engineering Conf. and ACM SIGSOFT Symp. Foundations of Software Engineering, 2003, p. 68–77.
    24. 24)
      • Paltor, I., Lilius, J.: `vUML: a tool for verifying UML models', Proc. 14th IEEE Int. Conf. Automated Software Engineering, ASE'99, 1999.
    25. 25)
      • Baresi, L., Ghezzi, C., Motolla, L.: `On accurate automatic verification of publish-subscribe architectures', Proc. 29th Int. Conf. Software Engineering, 2007.
    26. 26)
      • S. Bensalem , V. Ganesh , Y. Lakhnech . (2000) An overview of SAL.
    27. 27)
      • Baldan, P., Corradini, A., König, B.: `Verifying finite-state graph grammars: an unfolding-based approach', Proc. Int. Conf. Concurrency Theory (CONCUR), 2004, p. 83–98, (LNCS, 3170).
    28. 28)
      • Baresi, L., Spoletini, P.: `On the use of alloy to analyze graph transformation systems', Proc. Third Int. Conf. Graph Transformations, (ICGT), 2006, (LNCS, 4178), p. 306–320.
    29. 29)
      • Baldan, P., König, B.: `Approximating the behavior of graph transformation systems', Proc. First Int. Conf. Graph Transformation (ICGT), 2002, p. 14–29, (LNCS, 2505).
    30. 30)
      • Baldan, P., Corradini, A., Gadducci, F.: `Specifying and verifying UML activity diagrams via graph transformation', Proc. Global Computing, 2004, p. 18–33, (LNCS, 3267).
    31. 31)
      • Ehrig, H., Pfender, M., Schneider, H.J.: `Graph grammars: an algebraic approach', 14thAnnual IEEE Symp. Switching and Automata Theory, 1973, p. 167–180.
    32. 32)
      • Dotti, F.L., Foss, L., Ribeiro, L., Santos, O.M.: `Verification of object-based distributed systems', Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Formal Methods for Open Object-based Distributed Systems, 2003, p. 261–275, (LNCS, 2884).
    33. 33)
      • D. Latella , I. Majzik , M. Massink . Automatic verification of UML statechart diagrams using the SPIN modelchecker. Form. Asp. Comput. , 6 , 637 - 664
    34. 34)
      • Kastenberg, H.: `Towards attributed graphs in GROOVE', In the first Workshop on Graph Transformation for Verification and Concurrency, 2005, p. 47–54, (ENTCS, 154).
    35. 35)
      • Heckel, R.: `Compositional verification of reactive systems specified by graph transformation', Proc. Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE), 1998, p. 138–153, (LNCS, 1382).
    36. 36)
      • Rafe, V., Rahmani, A.T.: `Formal analysis of workflows using UML 2.0 activities and graph transformation systems', Proc. 5th Int. Colloquium on Theoretical Aspects of Computing (ICTAC), 2008, p. 305–318, (LNCS, 5160).
    37. 37)
      • G.J. Holzmann . The model checker spin. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. , 5 , 279 - 295
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-sen.2008.0059
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-sen.2008.0059
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
Print this page
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address