An OBDD-representation of statecharts

Helbig, Johannes; Kelb, Peter

doi:10.1109/edtc.1994.326884

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Industrial tools have been developed to translate Statecharts specifications into executable programs or hardware descriptions suitable for simulation. Furthermore, attempts have been made to link Statecharts directly with ordered binary decision diagrams for use in model checkers [Helbig and Kelb 1994]. Unfortunately, assigning semantics to Statecharts is a difficult problem.…”

Section: Statecharts Proposed By David Harel In the 1980smentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal hardware specification languages for protocol compliance verification

Bunker

Gopalakrishnan

McKee

2004

ACM Trans. Des. Autom. Electron. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advent of the system-on-chip and intellectual property hardware design paradigms makes protocol compliance verification increasingly important to the success of a project. One of the central tools in any verification project is the modeling language, and we survey the field of candidate languages for protocol compliance verification, limiting our discussion to languages originally intended for hardware and software design and verification activities. We frame our comparison by first constructing a taxonomy of these languages, and then by discussing the applicability of each approach to the compliance verification problem. Each discussion includes a summary of the development of the language, an evaluation of the language's utility for our problem domain, and, where feasible, an example of how the language might be used to specify hardware protocols. Finally, we make some general observations regarding the languages considered.

show abstract

Section: Statecharts Proposed By David Harel In the 1980smentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal hardware specification languages for protocol compliance verification

Bunker

Gopalakrishnan

McKee

2004

ACM Trans. Des. Autom. Electron. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Es gibt entsprechende Werkzeuge (zumindest im akademischen Forschungsumfeld), die vor allem im Rechnerentwurf und im Kontext reaktiver, eingebetteter Systeme Anwendung finden. Im MENTOR-Projekt haben wir das in [17] beschriebene Werkzeug fü r Symbolisches Modellprü fen verwendet. Die Anwendung dieses Werkzeugs auf die Statecharts der von uns spezifizierten Workflows erforderte einige kleinere Anpassungen der Statecharts.…”

Section: Modellprü Fenunclassified

Spezifikation, Verifikation und verteilte Ausführung von Workflows in MENTOR

Weikum

Wodtke

Dittrich

et al. 1997

Informatik - Forschung und Entwicklung

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die formale Fundierung der State-und Activitycharts wird auf drei Ebenen ausgenutzt. Auf der Spezifikationsebene erzwingt der verwendete Formalismus prä-zise Beschreibungen von Geschä ftsprozessen, lä ßt jedoch ebenfalls spä tere Verfeinerungen zu. Darü ber hinaus kö nnen Spezifikationen, die mit anderen Methoden erstellt wurden, weitgehend automatisch auf State-und Activitycharts abgebildet werden. Auf der Ebene der Verifikation kritischer Workflow-Eigenschaften erö ffnen Statecharts die Anwendung der effizienten Methode des Modellprü fens. Auf der Ausfü hrungsebene schließlich kö nnen aus einer Spezifikation verteilt ausfü hrbare Komponenten generiert werden. Im Rahmen des MENTOR-Projekts wurde eine alle drei Ebenen umfassende Umgebung fü r die Spezifikation, Verifikation und verteilte Ausfü hrung von Workflows realisiert.Schlü sselwö rter: Workflow-Management, verteilte Informationssysteme, Spezifikationsmethoden, Statecharts Abstract. This article presents an approach to the specification, verification, and distributed execution of workflows based on state and activity charts. The formal foundation of state and activity charts is exploited at three levels. At the specification level, the formalism enforces precise descriptions of business processes while also allowing subsequent refinements. In addition, precise specifications based on other methods can be automatically converted into state and activity charts. At the level of verification, state charts are amenable to the efficient method of model checking, to verify particularly critical workflow properties. Finally, at the execution level, a state chart specification forms the basis for the automatic generation of modules that can be directly executed in a distributed manner. Within the MENTOR project, a coherent prototype system has been built that comprises all three levels: specification, verification, and distributed execution.

show abstract

“…There are other potentially more efficient ways of constructing the global transition relation, but in general the constructions are still expensive. Interested readers are referred to the work of Helbig and Kelb [35] for an example.…”

Section: Translate Nondeterministic Transitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Helbig and Kelb [35] gave a BDD encoding for statecharts. The version of statecharts semantics and the state hierarchy encoding that they used are similar to ours, except that they did not assume the synchrony hypothesis and did not flatten nested-or states (Section 4.2).…”

Section: Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model checking large software specifications

Anderson

Beame

Burns

et al. 1996

SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-In this paper, we present our experiences in using symbolic model checking to analyze a specification of a software system for aircraft collision avoidance. Symbolic model checking has been highly successful when applied to hardware systems. We are interested in whether model checking can be effectively applied to large software specifications. To investigate this, we translated a portion of the state-based system requirements specification of Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System II (TCAS II) into input to a symbolic model checker (SMV). We successfully used the symbolic model checker to analyze a number of properties of the system. We report on our experiences, describing our approach to translating the specification to the SMV language, explaining our methods for achieving acceptable performance, and giving a summary of the properties analyzed. Based on our experiences, we discuss the possibility of using model checking to aid specification development by iteratively applying the technique early in the development cycle. We consider the paper to be a data point for optimism about the potential for more widespread application of model checking to software systems.

show abstract

An OBDD-representation of statecharts

Cited by 16 publications

References 9 publications

Formal hardware specification languages for protocol compliance verification

Formal hardware specification languages for protocol compliance verification

Spezifikation, Verifikation und verteilte Ausführung von Workflows in MENTOR

Model checking large software specifications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About