UML-B: A Plug-in for the Event-B Tool Set

Snook, Colin; Butler, Michael

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-87603-8_32

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Related Work. Significant amount of work has been done on integrating graphical and formal specification techniques to support system development (see e.g., [5,11,13,27]). In particular, the combination UML with Petri Nets is discussed in [5].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our work, we follow the same idea and consult the graphical models while creating Event-B specifications. In [26,27] UML-B -a graphical formal modelling notation -has been proposed to support class diagrams and state machines concepts within the Event-B development. However, the goal of our research is to consider possible combination UML and Event-B modelling in the context of access control model and RBAC policies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards Integrated Modelling of Dynamic Access Control with UML and Event-B

Vistbakka

Troubitsynå

2018

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) is a popular authorization model used to manage data-access constraints in a wide range of systems. RBAC usually defines the static view on the access rights. However, to ensure dependability of a system, it is often necessary to model and verify statedependent access rights. Such a modelling allows us to explicitly define the dependencies between the system states and permissions to access and modify certain data. In this paper, we present a work-in-progress on combining graphical and formal modelling to specify and verify dynamic access control. The approach is illustrated by a case study -a reporting management system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Integrated Modelling of Dynamic Access Control with UML and Event-B

Vistbakka

Troubitsynå

2018

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A UML-B tool [SB08] has been developed for the Rodin platform which can be used to generate an Event-B model corresponding to a UML-B development.…”

Section: Uml-bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building traceable Event-B models from requirements

Alkhammash

Butler

Fathabadi

et al. 2015

Science of Computer Programming

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Constructing traceable Event-B models from requirements is crucial in the system development process. It enables the validation of the model against the requirements and allows to identify different refinement levels, which is a key to successful formal modelling with a refinement-based method. Our objective is to present an approach based on the use of semiformal structures to bridge the gap between requirements and Event-B models and retain traceability to requirements in Event-B models. The presented approach makes use of the UML-B and Atomicity Decomposition (AD) approaches. UML-B provides UML graphical notation that enables the development of an Event-B formal model, while the AD approach provides a graphical notation to illustrate the refinement structures and assists in the organisation of refinement levels. The AD approach also combines several constructor patterns to manage control flows in Event-B. The intent of this paper is to harness the benefits of the UML-B and AD approaches to facilitate constructing Event-B models from requirements and provide traceability between requirements and Event-B models.

show abstract

“…Note, however, that these bounds limit the system state of the lmstrip model instead of a system state in the application model, i.e. they it can be validated with techniques designed for structural analysis [2,7,20,12].…”

Section: Verication Using the Filmstripping Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Filmstripping and Unrolling: A Comparison of Verification Approaches for UML and OCL Behavioral Models

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Guaranteeing the essential properties of a system early in the design process is an important as well as challenging task. Modeling languages such as the UML allow for a formal description of structure and behavior by employing OCL class invariants and operation preand postconditions. This enables the verication of a system description prior to implementation. For this purpose, rst approaches have recently been put forward. In particular, solutions relying on the deductive power of constraint solvers are promising. Here, complementary approaches of how to formulate and transform respective UML and OCL verication tasks into corresponding solver tasks have been proposed. However, the resulting methods have not yet been compared to each other. In this contribution, we consider two verication approaches for UML and OCL behavioral models and compare their methods and the respective workows with each other. By this, a better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of these verication methods is achieved.

show abstract

UML-B: A Plug-in for the Event-B Tool Set

Cited by 18 publications

References 3 publications

Towards Integrated Modelling of Dynamic Access Control with UML and Event-B

Towards Integrated Modelling of Dynamic Access Control with UML and Event-B

Building traceable Event-B models from requirements

Filmstripping and Unrolling: A Comparison of Verification Approaches for UML and OCL Behavioral Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About