SEKE 2012 Proceedings - Knowledge Systems Institute

state machines. [6] addresses the problem at architecture
level (state machine assembly). [9] does alike and guides
assembling with rules.
Works about state machines verif cation have to be mentioned
despite their different objectives, as they focus on
consistency between a software and its specif cation. Many
works are based on model checking techniques. UML is
thus transformed into the modeling language of the model
checking tool: it can be PROMELA to use SPIN as it is
done in [16] or LTSs to use JACK as in [11]. Some works
analyze consistency using pre and post-conditions as it is
done in [4] using the Z formalism. Lastly, consistency can
be expressed through transformations as it is done for refactoring
in [21]. Such techniques require to explicitly express
liveness properties.
5. Conclusions and future works
In this paper, we address the issue of the incremental
construction of state machines to support agile development
processes. It implies a composition of successive vertical
and horizontal ref nements that must globally achieve a consistent
implementation of the initial software specif cation.
The study of existing works points out that these two aspects
are never considered as a whole, despite they are key
points to def ne development strategies.
We demonstrated the computational feasibility of our
proposal by developing a JAVA tool named IDCM (Incremental
Development of Conforming Models). It implements
the verif cation of conf, ext, redr and refines relations
[17] by transforming UML state machines into LTSs
and analyzing their relations. Analysis provides designers
with feedback about detected warnings or errors.
Beyond the several experimented case studies, we plan to
evaluate our proposal and tool on full size projects. We also
currently study the adaptation of this work to componentbased
architectures, in other words to coarse-grained, reusecentered
development approaches, to address complexity
and scalability issues.
References
[1] M. Abadi and L. Lamport. The existence of ref nement mappings.
In Logic in Computer Science, pages 165–175, 1988.
[2] J. Abrial. The B-Book : Assigning Programs to Meanings.
Cambridge University Press, 1996.
[3] S.W.Ambler.The Object Primer: Agile Model-Driven Development
with UML 2.0. 3rd edition, 2004.
[4] E. Boiten and M. Bujorianu. Exploring UML ref nement
through unif cation. In Critical Systems Development with
UML, LNCS, page 47—62, 2003.
[5] E. Brinksma and G. Scollo. Formal notions of implementation
and conformance in LOTOS. Technical Report INF-86-
13, Twente University of Technology, Department of Informatics,
Enschede, Netherlands, Dec. 1986.
[6] S. Burmester, H. Giese, M. Hirsch, and D. Schilling. Incremental
design and formal verif cation with UML/RT in the
FUJABA Real-Time tool suite. In SVERTS, 2004.
[7] A. Cicchetti, D. D. Ruscio, D. S. Kolovos, and A. Pierantonio.
A test-driven approach for metamodel development,
chapter Emerging Technologies for the Evolution and Maintenance
of Software Models, pages 319–342. IGI Global,
2012.
[8] J. Derrick and E. Boiten. Refinement in Z and object-Z: foundations
and advanced applications. Springer-Verlag, 2001.
[9] G. Engels, J. H. Hausmann, R. Heckel, and S. Sauer. Testing
the consistency of dynamic UML diagrams. In Proc. 6th Int.
Conf. on Integrated Design and Process Technology, 2002.
[10] H. Garavel, F. Lang, R. Mateescu, and W. Serwe. CADP
2010: A toolbox for the construction and analysis of distributed
processes. In P. Abdulla and K. Leino, editors,
Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of
Systems, volume 6605 of LNCS, pages 372–387. Springer,
2011.
[11] S. Gnesi, D. Latella, and M. Massink. Modular semantics
for a UML statechart diagrams kernel and its extension to
multicharts and branching time model-checking. Journal of
Logic and Algebraic Programming, 51(1):43–75, Apr. 2001.
[12] C. A. R. Hoare. Communicating sequential processes. Prentice
Hall, June 2004.
[13] ISO/IEC 9646-1. Information technology – Open Systems
Interconnection – Conformance testing methodology and
framework – Part 1: General concepts, 1991.
[14] G. Leduc. A framework based on implementation relations
for implementing LOTOS specif cations. Computer Networks
and ISDN Systems, 25(1):23—41, 1992.
[15] M. Lehman. On understanding laws, evolution, and conservation
in the large-program life cycle. Journal of Systems
and Software, 1:213–221, 1980.
[16] J. Lilius and I. Paltor. Formalising UML state machines for
model checking. In UML conf., 1999.
[17] H. Luong, T. Lambolais, and A. Courbis. Implementation of
the Conformance Relation for Incremental Development of
Behavioural Models. Models 2008, LNCS, 5301:356–370,
2008.
[18] R. Milner. Communication and concurrency. Prentice-Hall,
1989.
[19] S. Moseley, S. Randall, and A. Wiles. In Pursuit of Interoperability.
In K. Jakobs, editor, Advanced Topics in Information
Technology Standards and Standardization Research,
chapter 17, pages 321–323. Hershey, 2006.
[20] D. E. Perry and A. L. Wolf. Foundations for the study of
software architecture. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering
Notes, 17(4):40–52, 1992.
[21] G. Sunyé, D. Pollet, Y. L. Traon, and J. Jézéquel. Refactoring
UML models. In UML conf., pages 134–148, 2001.
[22] N. Wirth. Program development by stepwise ref nement.
Communications of the ACM, 14(4):221–227, 1971.
699