Constraint-based specification of model transformations

Lano, Kevin; Kolahdouz-Rahimi, Shekoufeh

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2012.09.006

Cited by 18 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4. Correct-by-construction synthesis of transformations from specifications [45,38]. Both 2 and 3 may involve mapping the transformation text to a formalism which supports the semantic analysis: the semantic model is termed a verification model or transformation model [36].…”

Section: Transformation Verification Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A restricted form of constraint in which no forAll quantifier can appear in Pred or Succ0 is called a conjunctive-implicative form constraint in [38], it has advantages in terms of comprehensibility and analysability compared to general constraints (eg., which may have nested alternating quantifiers in Pred ).…”

Section: A and B Det(a) And Det(b ) A Or B False A Implies B Det(a) Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We recommend that such specifications are rewritten into conjunctive-implicative form in order to improve the comprehensibility and verifiability of the specification. The efficiency of the implementation may also be higher [38].…”

Section: Theorem 1 If a Type 1 Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The optimisation patterns 'Replace recursion by iteration' and 'Omit negative application conditions' can also assist in verification of type 2 and type 3 constraints Cn [38]. In the first case bounded iteration can be used instead of fixpoint iteration, if each transformation step of Cn strictly reduces the set of model elements that can match Cn's application condition.…”

Section: Analysis Of Type 2 and Type 3 Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A framework for model transformation verification

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. A model transformation verification task may involve a number of different transformations, from one or more of a wide range of different model transformation languages, each transformation may have a particular transformation style, and there are a number of different verification properties which can be verified for each language and style of transformation. Transformations may operate upon many different modelling languages. This diversity of languages and properties indicates the need for a suitably generic framework for model transformation verification, independent of particular model transformation languages, and able to provide support for systematic procedures for verification across a range of languages, and for a range of properties. In this paper we describe the elements of such a framework, and apply this framework to a range of transformation verification problems. Our particular contributions are (i) languageindependent verification techniques based around the concepts of transformation invariants and variants; (ii) language-independent representation metamodels for transformation specifications and implementations, (iii) mappings from these representations to the B and Z3 formalisms, (iv) the use of transformation patterns to facilitate verification. The paper is novel in covering a wide range of different verification techniques for a wide range of MT languages, within an integrated framework.

show abstract

Section: Transformation Verification Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A and B Det(a) And Det(b ) A Or B False A Implies B Det(a) Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theorem 1 If a Type 1 Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis Of Type 2 and Type 3 Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A framework for model transformation verification

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The goal of such a translation is to reuse existing verification and analysis tools and their formal model of computation and communication for the purpose of validating the AADL models. One challenge, however, is the problem of proving that the translation itself preserves the intended semantics of the AADL model in the first place or, at least, some of the specific properties or requirements it needs to satisfy (Cabot et al, 2010;Lano and Rahimi, 2013;Giese et al, 2006;Narayanan and Karsai, 2008;Narayanan, 2008;Guerra et al, 2013;Kessentini et al, 2011;Mottu et al, 2008;Xiong et al, 2007). This paper presents a machine checked semantics-preserving transformation of a subset of AADL into Timed Abstract State Machines (TASM) (Ouimet andLundqvist, 2006, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

From AADL to Timed Abstract State Machines: A verified model transformation

Yang¹,

Hu²,

Ma³

et al. 2014

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OATAO is an open access repository that collects the work of Toulouse researchers and makes it freely available over the web where possible. This is an author-deposited version published in : http://oatao.univ-toulouse.fr/ Eprints ID : 12950 To verify and analyze the AADL models, model transformation technologies are often used to automatically extract a formal specification suitable for analysis and verification. In this process, it remains a challenge to prove that the model transformation preserves the semantics of the initial AADL model or, at least, some of the specific properties or requirements it needs to satisfy. This paper presents a machine checked semantics-preserving transformation of a subset of AADL (including periodic threads, data port communications, mode changes, and the AADL behavior annex) into Timed Abstract State Machines (TASM). The AADL standard itself lacks at present a formal semantics to make this translation validation possible. Our contribution is to bridge this gap by providing two formal semantics for the subset of AADL. The execution semantics provided by the AADL standard is formalized as Timed Transition Systems (TTS). This formalization gives a reference expression of AADL semantics which can be compared with the TASM-based translation (for verification purpose). Finally, the verified transformation is mechanized in the theorem prover Coq.

show abstract

Towards a Language for Graph-Based Model Transformation Design Patterns

Ergin

Syriani

2014

Theory and Practice of Model Transformations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Constraint-based specification of model transformations

Cited by 18 publications

References 7 publications

A framework for model transformation verification

A framework for model transformation verification

From AADL to Timed Abstract State Machines: A verified model transformation

Towards a Language for Graph-Based Model Transformation Design Patterns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About