Categorical foundations for structured specifications in Z

Castro, Pablo F.; Aguirre, Nazareno; Pombo, Carlos López; Maibaum, Tom

doi:10.1007/s00165-015-0336-0

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The predicate section is used to constrain the declared elements of the declaration section. 19 Since the Alloy language is rooted in Z and the translation of Z specifications to Alloy ones is straightforward and takes little effort, we use the Alloy Analyzer to verify and validate our specifications in Z. 20 In order to provide a quick reference for the reader, a brief introduction of the Z notation which we use in the presented formal model of this paper is placed in Appendix A, Table A1.…”

Section: Formal Specification Of Model Transformation Design Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formalizing model transformation patterns

Rouhi

Kolahdouz-Rahimi

Lano

2022

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model transformation has become an established field, and it is important to improve the quality of specifications written in transformation languages. Different transformation patterns have been introduced in the model-driven engineering (MDE) community to improve the quality of transformation specifications. However, due to the different definitions of pattern concepts by different authors, it is difficult for practitioners to understand how to apply patterns in practice. Therefore, there is a need to unify transformation pattern concepts by presenting a generic metamodel and formalizing patterns in terms of this metamodel, to define the meaning of pattern application. In this research a general metamodel for definition of different design patterns in model transformation is provided. The metamodel presents clear description of common aspects of transformation patterns, which facilitates the application of patterns on model transformations by validating the application against the underlying formalism. Additionally, a unified and precise terminology for the application and verification of model transformation patterns by using a formal model of model transformation patterns in the Z notation is presented. To show the applicability of the proposed formalism, four well-known model transformation patterns are specified. K E Y W O R D S model-driven development (MDD), model transformation, design pattern, formal model 1 | INTRODUCTION Model transformations (MTs) have become more and more complex in recent years, as a result of their application to substantial problem cases in both academia and industry. Enhancing the quality of model transformations to provide a result in an efficient and modular way is a crucial task for the model-driven community. Design patterns for model transformations have been identified as an important solution to potentially improve the quality of model transformations. 1-3To obtain the benefit and utilize the productivity accompanied by the pattern application in MDE, model transformation patterns must first be formalized, which paves the way for automating the MT-based software development and verification. [3][4][5] Exploring the literature reveals some formal models for model transformations. [6][7][8] However, to the best of our knowledge, there is not any formalism for model transformation patterns in the literature. Having a unified formalism regarding model transformation patterns will provide a foundation to support the pattern application and verification features easily in the current model transformation tools. 9,10 As a result, this research aims to present a new formalism for defining model transformation patterns and expressing the semantics of pattern application.To provide a conceptual view which serves as the informal basics of the proposed formalism of the MT patterns, an abstract architecture representing the underlying concepts such as model and metamodel is presented first. In this research, we use the Z specification language to formalize the MT design patterns. In a...

show abstract

Section: Formal Specification Of Model Transformation Design Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formalizing model transformation patterns

Rouhi

Kolahdouz-Rahimi

Lano

2022

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been observed that most of the formal languages used in Computer Science can be captured as institutions. One notable example is a category-theoretic formalisation of Z and its structuring mechanisms which captures the structure of modular Z specifications in a natural way [CAPT15]. The semantics of Event-B that we present in this paper follows a similar school of thought by first defining an institution for Event-B, called EVT , in Section 4 and then translating Event-B specifications into structured specifications in the EVT institution in Section 5.…”

Section: The Semantics Of Specification Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building Specifications in the Event-B Institution

Farrell¹,

Monahan²,

Power³

2022

Logical Methods in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes a formal semantics for the Event-B specification language using the theory of institutions. We define an institution for Event-B, EVT, and prove that it meets the validity requirements for satisfaction preservation and model amalgamation. We also present a series of functions that show how the constructs of the Event-B specification language can be mapped into our institution. Our semantics sheds new light on the structure of the Event-B language, allowing us to clearly delineate three constituent sub-languages: the superstructure, infrastructure and mathematical languages. One of the principal goals of our semantics is to provide access to the generic modularisation constructs available in institutions, including specification-building operators for parameterisation and refinement. We demonstrate how these features subsume and enhance the corresponding features already present in Event-B through a detailed study of their use in a worked example. We have implemented our approach via a parser and translator for Event-B specifications, EBtoEVT, which also provides a gateway to the Hets toolkit for heterogeneous specification.

show abstract

“…It has been observed that most of the formal languages used in Computer Science can be captured as institutions. One notable example is a category-theoretic formalisation of Z and its structuring mechanisms which captures the structure of modular Z specifications in a natural way [13]. The semantics of Event-B that we present in this paper follows a similar school of thought by first defining an institution for Event-B, called EVT , in Section 4 and then translating Event-B specifications into structured specifications in the EVT institution in Section 5.…”

Section: Modularisation Of Specificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this would involve changing the original specification of mac, and so we have chosen a specification in Figure 25 that more closely resembles the approach shown in Figure 24. The main elements of the instantiation are the inclusion of ctx2 and mac in maci (line 12), along with a series of appropriate renamings (lines [13][14][15][16][17] to match those in the original.…”

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%

Building Specifications in the Event-B Institution

Farrell¹,

Monahan²,

Power³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes a formal semantics for the Event-B specification language using the theory of institutions. We define an institution for Event-B, EVT , and prove that it meets the validity requirements for satisfaction preservation and model amalgamation. We also present a series of functions that show how the constructs of the Event-B specification language can be mapped into our institution. Our semantics sheds new light on the structure of the Event-B language, allowing us to clearly delineate three constituent sub-languages: the superstructure, infrastructure and mathematical languages. One of the principal goals of our semantics is to provide access to the generic modularisation constructs available in institutions, including specification-building operators for parameterisation and refinement. We demonstrate how these features subsume and enhance the corresponding features already present in Event-B through a detailed study of their use in a worked example. We have implemented our approach via a parser and translator for Event-B specifications, eb2evt, which also provides a gateway to the Hets toolkit for heterogeneous specification.

show abstract

Categorical foundations for structured specifications in Z

Cited by 8 publications

References 25 publications

Formalizing model transformation patterns

Formalizing model transformation patterns

Building Specifications in the Event-B Institution

Building Specifications in the Event-B Institution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About