Ensuring Correctness of Model Transformations While Remaining Decidable

Brenas, Jon Haël; Echahed, Rachid; Strecker, Martin

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46750-4_18

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In [24], the authors presented another survey of approaches for verifying model transformations. In [7], the authors identified the requirements that should be satisfied by logics used for reasoning about model transformations. They investigated decidable fragments of first-order logic.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A UML 2.0 Activity Diagrams/CSP Integrated Approach for Modeling and Verification of Software Systems

Elmansouri

Meghzili

Chaoui

2021

csci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes an approach integrating UML 2.0 Activity Diagrams (UML2-AD) and Communicating Sequential Process (CSP) for modeling and verication of software systems. A UML2-AD is used for modeling a software system while CSP is used for verication purposes. The proposed approach consists of another way of transforming UML2-AD models to Communicating Sequential Process (CSP) models. It focuses also on checking the correctness of some properties of the transformation itself. These properties are specified using Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) and verified using the GROOVE model checker. This approach is based on Model Driven Engineering (MDE). The meta-modelling is realized using AToMPM tool while the model transformation and the correctness of its properties are realized using GROOVE tool. Finally, we illustrated this approach through a case study.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A UML 2.0 Activity Diagrams/CSP Integrated Approach for Modeling and Verification of Software Systems

Elmansouri

Meghzili

Chaoui

2021

csci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We hope to manage to give readers an idea of the logical foundation of our method without spending too much time and space on information that would not be relevant to most end-users. Readers interested in a more formal and in-depth description can find it in Brenas et al (2016aBrenas et al ( , 2018b.…”

Section: Logic Graph Rewriting and Verificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This process is achieved by two functions: the weakest-precondition wp ( s, Q ) and the verification condition vc ( s, Q ) for a strategy s and a post-condition Q . More details can be found in Brenas et al ( 2016a ). The definitions of these functions are given in Figures 2 , 3 , respectively.…”

Section: Logic Graph Rewriting and Verificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Proving the Correctness of Knowledge Graph Update: A Scenario From Surveillance of Adverse Childhood Experiences

Brenas

Shaban-Nejad

2021

Front. Big Data

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge graphs are a modern way to store information. However, the knowledge they contain is not static. Instances of various classes may be added or deleted and the semantic relationship between elements might evolve as well. When such changes take place, a knowledge graph might become inconsistent and the knowledge it conveys meaningless. In order to ensure the consistency and coherency of dynamic knowledge graphs, we propose a method to model the transformations that a knowledge graph goes through and to prove that the new transformations do not yield inconsistencies. To do so, we express the knowledge graphs as logically decorated graphs, then we describe the transformations as algorithmic graph transformations and we use a Hoare-like verification process to prove correctness. To demonstrate the proposed method in action, we use examples from Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), which is a public health crisis.

show abstract

“…These features can often lead to undecidability of both model checking and satisfiability of such logics, see [5], [6]. -Other relevant references to mention here include [10] and [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model checking and model synthesisfrom partial models: a logic-based perspective

Goranko

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I consider the following generic scenario: an abstract model M of some 'real' system is only partially presented, or partially known to us, and we have to ensure that the actual system satisfies a given specification, formalised in some logical language. This scenario has at least two essentially different interpretations, leading to two, essentially different, formal logical and algorithmic problems: "Model Synthesis from Partial Models", where some 'admissible' extension of M to a full model must satisfy the specification, and "Model Checking of Partial Models", where all 'admissible' extensions of M to a full model must satisfy the specification. These problems naturally extend the classical logical decision problems of Satisfiability, Validity, and Model Checking. Here I briefly discuss both problems in the contexts of classical, modal and temporal logics. I make some observations, state some open questions, and outline a general tableaux-style procedure that solves the problem of unconstrained model synthesis from finite partial models for several well-known modal and temporal logics, incl. K, LTL, CTL, ATL.

show abstract

Ensuring Correctness of Model Transformations While Remaining Decidable

Cited by 8 publications

References 21 publications

A UML 2.0 Activity Diagrams/CSP Integrated Approach for Modeling and Verification of Software Systems

A UML 2.0 Activity Diagrams/CSP Integrated Approach for Modeling and Verification of Software Systems

Proving the Correctness of Knowledge Graph Update: A Scenario From Surveillance of Adverse Childhood Experiences

Model checking and model synthesisfrom partial models: a logic-based perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About