Article

Reasoning about real-time statecharts in the presence of semantic variations

Authors:

Subash Shankar,

Vladimir Sipos,

Xiaowei XuAuthors Info & Claims

ASE '05: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering

Pages 243 - 252

https://doi.org/10.1145/1101908.1101945

Published: 07 November 2005 Publication History

Abstract

This paper describes a framework that allows for reasoning about and verification of concurrent statecharts with real-time constraints subject to semantic variations. The major problems addressed by this paper include the capture of multiple semantic variations of real-time statecharts, and the use of the resulting semantics for further analysis. Our solution is based on a theoretical framework involving a two-dimensional temporal logic that is used to independently capture flow of control through statecharts as well as flow of time. The independence of these dimensions, along with the high-level nature of temporal logic allows for simple adaptation to alternate semantics of statecharts as well as real-time models. The paper defines our logic, shows how the semantics of real-time statecharts can be expressed in this formalism, and describes our tools for capturing and reasoning about these semantics. The underlying goal is the formal analysis of real-time software behavior in a way that captures designer intentions.

References

[1]

R. Alur. Timed automata. In International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV), pages 8--22, 1999.]]

Digital Library

[2]

T. Arons, J. Hooman, H. Kugler, A. Pnueli, and M. van der Zwaag. Deductive verification of UML models in TLPVS. In UML, pages 335--349, 2004.]]

[3]

S. V. A. Campos, E. M. Clarke, and M. Minea. The verus tool: A quantitative approach to the formal verification of real-time systems. In Computer Aided Verification (CAV), pages 452--455, 1990.]]

Digital Library

[4]

W. Chan, R. J. Anderson, P. Beame, D. H. Jones, D. Notkin, and W. E. Warner. Decoupling synchronization from local control for ecient symbolic model checking of statecharts. In International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 142--151, 1999.]]

Digital Library

[5]

E. M. Clarke, E. Emerson, and A. Sistla. Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), 8(2):244--263, Apr. 1986.]]

Digital Library

[6]

A. David, O. Möller, and W. Yi. Formal verification of UML statecharts with real time extensions. In Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE), pages 218--232, 2002.]]

Digital Library

[7]

K. Diethers, U. Goltz, and M. Huhn. Model checking UML statecharts with time. In Workshop on Critical Systems Development with UML, 2002.]]

[8]

L. K. Dillon and R. K. Stirewalt. Inference graphs: A computational structure supporting generation of customizable and correct analysis components. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29(2):133-150, February 2003.]]

Digital Library

[9]

K. Fuhrmann and J. Hiemer. Formal verification of STATEMATE-statecharts. Technical report, ESPRESS Project Technical Report, 2001.]]

[10]

C. Ghezzi, D. Mandrioli, and A. Morzenti. TRIO: A logic language for executable specifications of real-time systems. Journal of Systems and Software, 12(2):107--123, May 1990.]]

Digital Library

[11]

D. Harel. Recurring dominoes: Making the highly undecidable highly understandable. In Conference on Foundations of Computation Theory, pages 177--194, 1983.]]

Digital Library

[12]

D. Harel. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming, 8:231--274, 1987.]]

Digital Library

[13]

D. Harel and A. Naamad. The STATEMATE semantics of statecharts. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5:293--333, 1996.]]

Digital Library

[14]

A. Knapp, S. Merz, and C. Rauh. Model checking timed UML state machines and collaborations. In 7th International Symposium on Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault Tolerant Systems (FTRTFT), pages 395--414, 2002.]]

Digital Library

[15]

F. Kroeger. Temporal Logic of Programs. Sprinter Verlag, 1987.]]

Digital Library

[16]

G. Kwon. Rewrite rules and operational semantics for model checking UML statecharts. In 3rd International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language (UML), pages 528--540, 2000.]]

[17]

K. G. Larsen, P. Pettersson, and W. Yi. UPPAAL in a nutshell. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 1(1-2):134--152, October 1997.]]

Digital Library

[18]

D. Latella, I. Majzik, and M. Massink. Automatic verification of a behavioral subset of UML statechart diagrams using the SPIN model checker. Formal Aspects of Computing, 11(6):637--664, 1999.]]

Digital Library

[19]

L. Lavazza, G. Quaroni, and M. Venturelli. Combining UML and formal notations for modelling real-time systems. In Joint European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC) and International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pages 196--206, 2001.]]

Digital Library

[20]

J. Lilius and I. P. Paltor. Formalising UML state machines for model checking. In Second International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language (UML), pages 430--445, 1999.]]

[21]

Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems. Sprinter Verlag, 1992.]]

[22]

J. Niu, J. M. Atlee, and N. A. Day. Composable semantics for model-based notations. In SIGSOFT/Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pages 149--158, 2002.]]

Digital Library

[23]

Object Management Group. UML 1.4 with Action Semantics, Final Adopted Specification, 1999.]]

[24]

Object Management Group. UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, and Time Specification, Draft Adopted Specification, January 2002.]]

[25]

S. Owre, S. Rajan, J. Rushby, N. Shankar, and M. Srivas. PVS: Combining specification, proof checking, and model checking. In CAV'96, Computer Aided Verification, number 1102 in LNCS, pages 411--414. Springer-Verlag, 1996.]]

Digital Library

[26]

Á. Schmidt and D. Varró. CheckVML: A tool for model checking visual modeling languages. In 6th International Conference on the Unified Modeling Language (UML), pages 92--95, 2003.]]

[27]

S. Shankar. A semantic model of real-time UML. In 4th International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods (ICFEM), pages 573--577, 2002.]]

Digital Library

[28]

S. Shankar and S. Asa. Formal semantics of UML with real-time constructs. In UML, pages 60--75, 2003.]]

[29]

I. Traore, D. B. Aredo, and H. Ye. An integrated framework for formal development of open distributed systems. Information and Software Technology, 46(5):281--286, April 2004.]]

[30]

M. von der Beeck. A comparison of statecharts variants. In Formal Techniques in Real Time and Fault Tolerant Systems (FTRTFT), pages 128--148, 1994.]]

Digital Library

Cited By

Kim JKang IChoi JLee I(2010)Timed and Resource-Oriented Statecharts for Embedded SoftwareIEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics10.1109/TII.2010.20602066:4(568-578)Online publication date: Nov-2010
https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2010.2060206
Cengarle MGrönniger HRumpe B(2009)Variability within Modeling Language DefinitionsProceedings of the 12th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems10.1007/978-3-642-04425-0_54(670-684)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-04425-0_54
Taleghani AAtlee J(2006)Semantic variations among UML statemachinesProceedings of the 9th international conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems10.1007/11880240_18(245-259)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2006
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/11880240_18

Recommendations

Semantic Differencing of Statecharts for Object-oriented Systems
MODELSWARD 2019: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development

Statecharts are well-suited to describe the behavior of objects in object-oriented systems. Effective statechart evolution analysis for detecting errors and exploring design alternatives requires to reveal the semantic differences from one statechart to ...
A formal requirements engineering method for specification, synthesis, and verification
SEE '97: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Engineering Environments (SEE '97)

This paper presents a formal requirements engineering method capturing specification, synthesis, and verification. Being multi-paradigm, our approach integrates individual established formal methods: temporal logics are used to express abstract ...
A UML statecharts semantics with message-passing
SAC '02: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM symposium on Applied computing

We give a formal semantics for one of the main UML diagram types for dynamical system behavior: statechart diagrams. This is the first semantics which explicitly models message-passing between different diagrams. It therefore lays a first foundation for ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ASE '05: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering

November 2005

482 pages

ISBN:1581139934

DOI:10.1145/1101908

General Chair:
David Redmiles
University of California, Irvine, CA
,
Program Chairs:
Tom Ellman
Vassar College
,
Andrea Zisman
City University, UK

Copyright © 2005 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 November 2005

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Conference

ASE05

Sponsor:

ASE05: International Conference on Automated Software Engineering 2005

November 7 - 11, 2005

CA, Long Beach, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 82 of 337 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

1
Total Citations
View Citations
318
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)5
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 08 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Kim JKang IChoi JLee I(2010)Timed and Resource-Oriented Statecharts for Embedded SoftwareIEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics10.1109/TII.2010.20602066:4(568-578)Online publication date: Nov-2010
https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2010.2060206
Cengarle MGrönniger HRumpe B(2009)Variability within Modeling Language DefinitionsProceedings of the 12th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems10.1007/978-3-642-04425-0_54(670-684)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-04425-0_54
Taleghani AAtlee J(2006)Semantic variations among UML statemachinesProceedings of the 9th international conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems10.1007/11880240_18(245-259)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2006
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/11880240_18

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten