Consistency in UML and B multiviews specifications

1
Consistency in UML and B multi-views
specifications

• D. OKALAS OSSAMI, J.-P. JACQUOT, J. SOUQUIERES
• okalas, jacquot, souquieres_at_loria.fr
• LORIA (Lorraine Laboratory of IT Research and
  its Applications)

2
Setting the context(1/2)
Using several notations to specify software
systems
3
Setting the context (2/2)

• How to help construction activities ?

• Development operators
• make representations evolve while maintaining
  their mutual consistency
• assist users during the development,
• enable the definition of specific design
  strategies (refinement, etc.)

• How to verify and ensure operatorss correctness ?

• Consistency relation
• Condition under which the application operators
  leads to consistent representations.

4
The goal of the paper
Objectives

• give a generic-template to define operators

• give a definition of the notion of consistency
  relation and some hints to verify it.

5
Overview

• Operators
• Definition
• Example operator Refine-Data
• Consistency relation
• Operators application
• Verification of the operators correctness
• Conclusion and future work

6
Development Operators Definition
Operator
High level abstractions defining construction
activities in an intuitive and language
independent way Souquières , N. Lévy and G.Smith
Operator Operator_Name Description
ltDescgt Parameters In ltParam_Name
Type_PARAMgt Result ltParam_Name
Type_PARAMgt
Application conditions Related to SpecB
ltCOND_Bgt Related to SpecUML
ltCOND_UMLgt Definition context ltcontextgt
ltOPERATOR_DEFgt Remain To Be Done ltTo Do Nextgt

7
Example operator Refine-Data
Operator
Specifications can be developed in stepwise
Operator Refine-Data Description Replacement
of some variables with more concrete
ones Parameters In Ma identifier
v identifier si state
sri,,srj Pow(States) Result Mar
identifier vr identifier Sr identifier
Application conditions Related to SpecB
Ma MACHINE REFINEMENT si ? S ? v
?DATA(Ma) ?sk.(sk ? sRi,,sRj ? si /
sk) Related to SpecUML ? C.(C ?
CLASS(SpecUML) ? c-gt Ma) ?a.(a ? ATTR(C) ?
a -gt v) ?T.(T ? TYPE(SpecUML) ? T-gt S)
8
Example operator Refine-Data
Operator
9
Consistency relation
Operator
Consistency relation
10
Operators application
11
Operators application
12
Operators correctness
Does the Refine-Data operator produce correct
representations ?
13
Operators correctness
Operators correctness
ID(TU?B(SpecUML)) ID(SpecB) ?
14
Operators correctness
Operators correctness
ID(TU?B(SpecUML)) ID(SpecB) ?
15
Operators correctness
4.?? .(TU-gtB(SpecUML) ? ? SpecB ? )
16
Operators correctness
TRAIN ? OBJECTS ? train ? TRAIN TRAINR ?
OBJECTS ? trainR ? TRAINR
17
Operators correctness
is TrainR a refinement of Train ?
18
Operators correctness
Conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4 true ? Refine-Data
is correct
19
Conclusion

• Operators a flexible approach to
• Identify design issues
• Force us to think about design decisions more
  carefully than about syntactical details
• Produce representations that can be useful for
  both
• users
• as graphical documentation
• specifiers
• as formal documentation for mathematical
  verification
• Consistency relation
• Provides minimal conditions for saying when an
  UML and B specifications can be considered
  consistent

20
Future Work

• Experiments
• first experiments with our prototype
  ArgoUMLB/SmarTools let us optimist (modeling
  entities, data, operations, etc.)
• experiments with more complex operators
• Apply the approach on more case studies
• Specify a library of useful operators

21
The End

• Questions?