A Framework for Temporal Verification Support in Domain-Specific Modelling

Meyers, Bart; Vangheluwe, Hans; Denil, Joachim; Salay, Rick

doi:10.1109/tse.2018.2859946

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This freedom of choice also extends to the property languages of choice (such as the metamodel patterns used in this paper). When the formalisms to specify paradigms are fixed and integrated, suitable and more specific property languages can be derived automatically using modelling language engineering techniques (such as ProMoBox [55], among other approaches). When this choice is not fixed, the paradigms used for property description and property checking need to be integrated properly as well.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-paradigm modelling for cyber–physical systems: a descriptive framework

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The complexity of cyber–physical systems (CPSs) is commonly addressed through complex workflows, involving models in a plethora of different formalisms, each with their own methods, techniques, and tools. Some workflow patterns, combined with particular types of formalisms and operations on models in these formalisms, are used successfully in engineering practice. To identify and reuse them, we refer to these combinations of workflow and formalism patterns as modelling paradigms. This paper proposes a unifying (Descriptive) Framework to describe these paradigms, as well as their combinations. This work is set in the context of Multi-Paradigm Modelling (MPM), which is based on the principle to model every part and aspect of a system explicitly, at the most appropriate level(s) of abstraction, using the most appropriate modelling formalism(s) and workflows. The purpose of the Descriptive Framework presented in this paper is to serve as a basis to reason about these formalisms, workflows, and their combinations. One crucial part of the framework is the ability to capture the structural essence of a paradigm through the concept of a paradigmatic structure. This is illustrated informally by means of two example paradigms commonly used in CPS: Discrete Event Dynamic Systems and Synchronous Data Flow. The presented framework also identifies the need to establish whether a paradigm candidate follows, or qualifies as, a (given) paradigm. To illustrate the ability of the framework to support combining paradigms, the paper shows examples of both workflow and formalism combinations. The presented framework is intended as a basis for characterisation and classification of paradigms, as a starting point for a rigorous formalisation of the framework (allowing formal analyses), and as a foundation for MPM tool development.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-paradigm modelling for cyber–physical systems: a descriptive framework

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, ProMoBox [73] moves a step further in pursuing generality. It integrates the definition and verification of temporal properties in discrete-time behavioural Domain-Specific Modelling Languages (DSML) whose semantics can be described as a schedule of graph rewrite rules.…”

Section: Dsl For User Friendly Specification Of Temporal Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a Holistic Approach to Verification and Validation of Autonomous Cognitive Systems

Ferrando

Dennis

Cardoso

et al. 2021

ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When applying formal verification to a system that interacts with the real world, we must use a model of the environment. This model represents an abstraction of the actual environment, so it is necessarily incomplete and hence presents an issue for system verification. If the actual environment matches the model, then the verification is correct; however, if the environment falls outside the abstraction captured by the model, then we cannot guarantee that the system is well behaved. A solution to this problem consists in exploiting the model of the environment used for statically verifying the system’s behaviour and, if the verification succeeds, using it also for validating the model against the real environment via runtime verification. The article discusses this approach and demonstrates its feasibility by presenting its implementation on top of a framework integrating the Agent Java PathFinder model checker. A high-level Domain Specific Language is used to model the environment in a user-friendly way; the latter is then compiled to trace expressions for both static formal verification and runtime verification. To evaluate our approach, we apply it to two different case studies: an autonomous cruise control system and a simulation of the Mars Curiosity rover.

show abstract

“…The mentioned technique i. e., in detail DSL extension with further properties (e. g., testing features) is a language engineering issue that is investigated in several papers. In [20,21], a framework, named ProMoBox, is introduced that enables DSL engineers to auto-integrate five sub-languages to a given DSL, to support specification and verification of temporal properties of a system modeled using the given DSL. It uses Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) to specify properties and offers a model checking engine plug-able to DSL environments to run and evaluate them.…”

Section: The Role Of Citizen Developer In Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges & opportunities in low-code testing

Khorram

Mottu

Sunyé

2020

Proceedings of the 23rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion Proceedi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low-code is a growing development approach supported by many platforms. It fills the gap between business and IT by supporting the active involvement of non-technical domain experts, named Citizen Developer, in the application development lifecycle.Low-code introduces new concepts and characteristics. However, it is not investigated yet in academic research to point out the existing challenges and opportunities when testing low-code software. This shortage of resources motivates this research to provide an explicit definition to this area that we call it Low-Code Testing.In this paper, we initially conduct an analysis of the testing components of five commercial Low-Code Development Platforms (LCDP) to present low-code testing advancements from a business point of view. Based on the low-code principles as well as the result of our analysis, we propose a feature list for low-code testing along with possible values for them. This feature list can be used as a baseline for comparing low-code testing components and as a guideline for building new ones. Accordingly, we specify the status of the testing components of investigated LCDPs based on the proposed features. Finally, the challenges of low-code testing are introduced considering three concerns: the role of citizen developer in testing, the need for high-level test automation, and cloud testing. We provide references to the state-of-the-art to specify the difficulties and opportunities from an academic perspective. The results of this research can be used as a starting point for future research in low-code testing area. CCS CONCEPTS• Software and its engineering → Software testing and debugging.

show abstract

A Framework for Temporal Verification Support in Domain-Specific Modelling

Cited by 10 publications

References 55 publications

Multi-paradigm modelling for cyber–physical systems: a descriptive framework

Multi-paradigm modelling for cyber–physical systems: a descriptive framework

Toward a Holistic Approach to Verification and Validation of Autonomous Cognitive Systems

Challenges & opportunities in low-code testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About