Mixed formal specifications with PVS

Allemand, Michel; Royer, Jean‐Claude

doi:10.1109/ipdps.2002.1016615

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lastly our approach is different on the semantic target: we choose an homogeneous approach based on partial algebraic data types and the use of a theorem prover. Here we use the Larch Prover tool, however our technique has been extended to PVS in [11]. Our approach is able to check inconsistency and also to prove both dynamic properties and data properties as expected in a real framework.…”

Section: Extensions and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Translation of UML Components into Formal Specifications

Peng

Romanczuk

Royer

2003

The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

UML demonstrated that it is a well-suited approach to analyse and design complex systems such as industrial ones. To improve software reliability and reusability the use of formal specification is necessary but it may be difficult. There is a general lack in the formal specification of the UML concepts. This decreases the ability to develop tools and guidelines to help the specifier. Software tools are needed to assist the formal specification process, but also to prove or to verify some parts. In this paper we propose a method to formally specify concurrent and communicating components with data in UML. The principle is, first to complete the design with axioms, second to translate the diagrams into algebraic specifications of data types thanks to our translation tool. We describe the translation principles which are based on previous work around symbolic transition systems and algebraic specifications. Finally, we sketch the implementation of our translation tool using XMI files and the XML4J parser.

show abstract

Section: Extensions and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It allows us to use prover tools like the Larch Prover [7] or PVS [8] for example. Of course we do not address all these problems in this current paper, complementary references are [9,10,5,11,12]. We will restrict our study to the translation of UML sequential and concurrent components with data into formal specifications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%