skip to main content
10.1145/3103111.3104042acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecoopConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Formal Analysis of Object-Oriented Mograms

Published:18 June 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

A mogram designates a software language implemented in either a programming or a modelling language. Object-Oriented mograms share many common language features, but also have specificities related to inheritance, collection values, opposite and contained references, or overloading. We propose a mathematical framework that captures the semantics of such mograms with a precise characterisation of the variation points. We implemented a prototype tool that enables formal analysis in a uniform way.

References

  1. M. Abadi and L. Cardelli. 1998. A Theory of Objects. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A.V. Aho, R. Sethi, and J.D. Ullman. 1986. Compilers:Principles, Techniques, and Tools. Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. W. Ahrendt, B. Beckert, R. Bubel, R. Hähnle, P.H. Schmitt, and M. Ulbrich (Eds.). 2016. Deductive Software Verification -- The KeYBook. From Theory to Practice. Springer-Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Moussa Amrani. 2013. A Formal Semantics of Kermeta. In Formal and Practical Aspects of Domain-Specific Languages: Recent Developments, Marjan Mernik (Ed.). Igi Global, Chapter 10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Moussa Amrani. 2013. Towards The Formal Verification of Model Transformations --- An Application to Kermeta. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Luxembourg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Anneke Kleppe. 2009. Software Language Engineering: Creating Domain-Specific Languages Using Metamodels. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. I. Attali, D. Caromel, and S. Ould Ehmety. 1995. An Operational Semantics for the Eiffel Language. Technical Report. INRIA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Luca Cardelli. 1988. A Semantics of Multiple Inheritance. Information and Computation 76, 2--3 (1988), 138--164. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Manuel Clavel, Francisco Duran, Steven Eker, Patrick Lincoln, Narciso Marti Oliet, Jose Meseguer, and Carolyn Talcott. 2007. All About Maude. A High-Performance Logical Framework. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Lncs), Vol. 4350. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. M. Dwyer, J. Hatcliff, M. Hoosier, and Robby. 2005. Building Your Own Software Model-Checker Using The Bogor Extensible Model-Checking Framework. In Computer-Aided Verification. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. D. Kolovos, L. Rose, A. Garcia-Dominguez, and R. Paige. 2017. The Epsilon Book.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Florent Latombe, Xavier Crégut, Benoît Combemale, Julien Deantoni, and Marc Pantel. 2015. Weaving Concurrency in eXecutable Domain-Specific Modeling Languages. In Conference on Software Language Engineering (SLE). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. Le Noir, S. Madelénat, C. Labreuche, O. Constant, G. Gailliard, M. Acher, and O. Barais. 2016. A Decision-Making Process for Exploring Architectural Variants in Systems Engineering. In Software Product Lines Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M. Nordio, C. Calcagno, P. Müller, and B. Meyer. 2009. A Sound and Complete Program Logic for Eiffel. In Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Object Management Group. 2005. Action Language for Foundational UML Alf -- Concrete Syntax for an Uml Action Language (ptc/2010-10-05). Technical Report. Object Management Group.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Object Management Group. 2006. Meta-Object Facility 2.0. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilles Perrouin, Gilles Vanwormhoudt, Brice Morin, Philippe Lahire, Olivier Barais, and Jean-Marc Jézéquel. 2012. Weaving Variability into Domain Metamodels. Software & Systems Modeling 11, 3 (2012), 361--383. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. K. Pohl, G. Böckle, and F van der Linden. 2005. Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. R. St'ark, J. Schmid, and E. Börger. 2001. Java and the Java Virtual Machine --- Definition, Verification, Validation. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. G. Winskel. 1993. The Formal Semantics of Programming Languages. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Formal Analysis of Object-Oriented Mograms

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

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

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          FTFJP'17: Proceedings of the 19th Workshop on Formal Techniques for Java-like Programs
          June 2017
          49 pages
          ISBN:9781450350983
          DOI:10.1145/3103111

          Copyright © 2017 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 the author(s) 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].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 18 June 2017

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          FTFJP'17 Paper Acceptance Rate10of12submissions,83%Overall Acceptance Rate51of75submissions,68%
        • Article Metrics

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

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader