Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Software and Systems Modeling
Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling 3/2019

13.12.2017 | Theme Section Paper

Basic problems in multi-view modeling

verfasst von: Jan Reineke, Christos Stergiou, Stavros Tripakis

Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling | Ausgabe 3/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Modeling all aspects of a complex system within a single model is a difficult, if not impossible, task. Multi-view modeling is a methodology where different aspects of the system are captured by different models, or views. A key question then is consistency: if different views of a system have some degree of overlap, how can we guarantee that they are consistent, i.e., that they do not contradict each other? In this paper we formulate this and other basic problems in multi-view modeling within an abstract formal framework. We then instantiate this framework onto several discrete system settings: languages and automata over finite and infinite words, and symbolic transition systems; and study how checking view consistency and other problems can be solved in these settings.
Vorheriger Artikel Editorial to the theme section on model-based design of cyber-physical systems
Nächster Artikel Rigorous design of cyber-physical systems

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
In that sense, our usage of the term “view” is similar to the usage of the same term in databases, where a view of say, a table, corresponds to a subtable where some rows or columns have been removed. Also, our usage of the term “abstraction functions” is consistent with the use of abstraction in verification frameworks such as abstract interpretation [11].
 
2
Note that when \(\sqsupseteq \) is a set-theoretic relation such as \(\subseteq \) or \(\supseteq \), this obviously holds and \(\sqcap \) is \(\bigcup \) or \(\bigcap \). When \(\sqsupseteq \) is \(=\), then \((2^{{\mathcal {D}}}, =)\) is not a lattice, and the definition of view reduction given below does not apply. This is not a problem, as in that case we require views to be complete.
 
3
In subsequent Sect. 4, we will use a different type of projection. In order to avoid confusion, we will use the term “hiding” instead of “projection” in the current section.
 
4
\(M^\sharp \) is a DFA because \(M_1\) and \(M_2\) are DFAs and DFA finite inverse projection preserves determinism.
 
Literatur
1.
2.
Amaral, V., Hardebolle, C., Karsai, G., Lengyel, L., Levendovszky, T.: Recent advances in multi-paradigm modeling. In: MODELS, pp. 220–224. Springer, Berlin (2010)
3.
Amaral, V., Hardebolle, C., Vangheluwe, H., Lengyel, L., Bunus, P.: Recent advances in multi-paradigm modeling. Electron. Commun. EASST. 50, 10 (2011)
4.
Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Ferrari, A., Mangeruca, L., Passerone, R., Sofronis, C.: Multiple viewpoint contract-based specification and design. In: FMCO, pp. 200–225. Springer, Berlin (2008)
5.
Bhave, A., Krogh, B.H., Garlan, D., Schmerl, B.: View consistency in architectures for cyber-physical systems. In: ICCPS 2011, pp. 151–160 (2011)
6.
Blanc, X., Mounier, I., Mougenot, A., Mens, T.: Detecting model inconsistency through operation-based model construction. In: ICSE, pp. 511–520 (2008)
7.
Broman, D., Lee, E.A., Tripakis, S., Törngren, M.: Viewpoints, formalisms, languages, and tools for cyber-physical systems. In: MPM (2012)
8.
Broy, M.: Multi-view modeling of software systems. In: Formal Methods at the Crossroads, Volume 2757 of LNCS, pp. 207–225. Springer, Berlin (2003)
9.
Broy, M.: A theory of system interaction: components, interfaces, and services. In: Goldin, Dina, Smolka, Scott A, Wegner, Peter (eds.) Interactive Computation, pp. 41–96. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRef
10.
Broy, M.: Software and system modeling: structured multi-view modeling, specification, design and implementation. In: Hinchey, M., Coyle, L. (eds.) Conquering Complexity, pp. 309–372 (2012)
11.
Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In: POPL, pp. 269–282. ACM, New York (1979)
12.
Diethers, K., Huhn, M.: Vooduu: verification of object-oriented designs using UPPAAL. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS, Volume 2988 of LNCS, pp. 139–143. Springer, Berlin (2004)
13.
Dijkman, R.M.: Consistency in Multi-Viewpoint Architectural Design. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente (2006)
14.
Doyen, L., Henzinger, T., Jobstmann, B., Petrov, T.: Interface theories with component reuse. In: EMSOFT, pp. 79–88 (2008)
15.
Easterbrook, S., Chechik, M.: A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’01, pp. 411–420, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2001)
16.
Egyed, A., Letier, E., Finkelstein, A.: Generating and evaluating choices for fixing inconsistencies in UML design models. In: 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 99–108 (2008)
17.
Finkelstein, A., Gabbay, D., Hunter, A., Kramer, J., Nuseibeh, B.: Inconsistency handling in multiperspective specifications. IEEE TSE 20(8), 569–578 (1994)
18.
Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman, New York (1979)MATH
19.
Getir, S., Grunske, L., Bernasko, C. K., Käfer, V., Sanwald, T., Tichy, M.: CoWolf—a generic framework for multi-view co-evolution and evaluation of models. In: 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, ICMT, pp. 34–40 (2015)
20.
Granger, P.: Improving the results of static analyses of programs by local decreasing iterations. In: Shyamasundar, R. (eds.) Foundations of software technology and theoretical computer science. FSTTCS 1992. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 652, pp 68–79. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (1992)
21.
Grundy, J., Hosking, J., Mugridge, W.B.: Inconsistency management for multiple-view software development environments. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24(11), 960–981 (1998)CrossRef
22.
Henzinger, T.A., Nickovic, D.: Independent implementability of viewpoints. In: Monterey Workshop, Volume 7539 of LNCS, pp. 380–395. Springer, Berlin (2012)
23.
Herzig, S.J.I., Qamar, A., Paredis, C.J.J.: An approach to identifying inconsistencies in model-based systems engineering. Proc. Comput. Sci. 28, 354–362 (2014)CrossRef
24.
Holzmann, G.: The Spin Model Checker. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)
25.
ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011. Systems and software engineering—Architecture description, the latest edition of the original IEEE Std 1471:2000, Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-intensive Systems. IEEE and ISO (2011)
26.
Jackson, D.: Structuring Z Specifications with Views. Technical Report CMU-CS-94-126. CMU (1994)
27.
Jackson, E.K., Levendovszky, T., Balasubramanian, D.: Automatically reasoning about metamodeling. Softw. Syst. Model. 14(1), 271–285 (2015)CrossRef
28.
Jackson, E.K., Sztipanovits, J.: Formalizing the structural semantics of domain-specific modeling languages. Softw. Syst. Model. 8(4), 451–478 (2009)CrossRef
29.
Jackson, M., Zave, P.: Distributed feature composition: a virtual architecture for telecommunications services. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24(10), 831–847 (1998)CrossRef
30.
Kao, J.-Y., Rampersad, N., Shallit, J.: On NFAs where all states are final, initial, or both. Theor. Comput. Sci. 410(4749), 5010–5021 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
31.
Lucas, F.J., Molina, F., Toval, A.: A systematic review of UML model consistency management. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(12), 1631–1645 (2009)CrossRef
32.
Maoz, S., Ringert, J.O., Rumpe, B.: Semantically configurable consistency analysis for class and object diagrams. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) Model driven engineering languages and systems. MODELS 2011. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 6981, pp. 153–167. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2011)
33.
Maoz, S., Ringert, J.O., Rumpe, B.: Verifying component and connector models against crosscutting structural views. In: ICSE, pp. 95–105. ACM, New York (2014)
34.
Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S., Zave, P.: Matching and merging of statecharts specifications. In: 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’07), pp. 54–64, May 2007
35.
Persson, M., Törngren, M., Qamar, A., Westman, J., Biehl, M., Tripakis, S., Vangheluwe, H., Denil, J.: A characterization of integrated multi-view modeling for embedded systems. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM & IEEE International Conference on Embedded Software (EMSOFT’13) (2013)
36.
Pittou, M., Tripakis, S.: Checking multi-view consistency of discrete systems with respect to periodic sampling abstractions. In: The 13th International Conference Formal Aspects of Component Software (FACS 2016) (2016)
37.
Pittou, M., Tripakis, S.: Multi-view consistency for infinitary regular languages. In: International Conference on Embedded Computer Systems: Architectures, Modeling and Simulation—SAMOS XVI (2016)
38.
Rajhans, A., Krogh, B.H.: Heterogeneous verification of cyber-physical systems using behavior relations. In: HSCC ’12, pp. 35–44. ACM, New York (2012)
39.
Rajhans, A., Krogh, B.H.: Compositional heterogeneous abstraction. In: HSCC ’13, pp. 253–262. ACM, New York (2013)
40.
Rasch, H., Wehrheim, H.: Checking consistency in UML diagrams: classes and state machines. In: Proceedings of 6th IFIP WG 6.1 International Conference Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems, FMOODS 2003, Paris, France, November 19–21, 2003, pp. 229–243 (2003)
41.
Reineke, J., Tripakis, S.: Basic problems in multi-view modeling. In: Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems—TACAS 2014 (2014)
42.
Sabetzadeh, M., Nejati, S., Easterbrook, S., Chechik, M.: A relationship-driven framework for model merging. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering, MISE ’07, p. 2. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2007)
43.
Sistla, A.P., Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P., Wolper, P.: The complementation problem for Büchi automata with applications to temporal logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 49, 217–237 (1987)CrossRefMATH
44.
Spanoudakis, G., Finkelstein, A.: Reconciling requirements: a method for managing interference, inconsistency and conflict. Ann. Softw. Eng. Spec. Issue Softw. Requir. Eng. 3, 433–457 (1996)
45.
Tripakis, S.: Compositionality in the science of system design. Proc. IEEE 104(5), 960–972 (2016)CrossRef
46.
Tripakis, S., Lickly, B., Henzinger, T.A., Lee, E.A.: A theory of synchronous relational interfaces. ACM Trans. Progr. Lang. Syst. (TOPLAS) 33(4), 14:1–14:41 (2011)
47.
von Hanxleden, R., Lee, E.A., Motika, C., Fuhrmann, H.: Multi-view modeling and pragmatics in 2020. In: 17th International Monterey Workshop, LNCS (2012)
48.
Zave, P.: Feature interactions and formal specifications in telecommunications. Computer 26(8), 20–28 (1993)CrossRef
49.
Zave, P., Jackson, M.: Conjunction as composition. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2(4), 379–411 (1993)CrossRef
50.
Zhao, X., Long, Q., Qiu, Z.: Model checking dynamic UML consistency. In: Liu, Z., He, J. (eds.) Formal Methods and Software Engineering, Volume 4260 of LNCS, pp. 440–459. Springer, Berlin (2006)
Metadaten
Titel
Basic problems in multi-view modeling
verfasst von
Jan Reineke
Christos Stergiou
Stavros Tripakis
Publikationsdatum
13.12.2017
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Software and Systems Modeling / Ausgabe 3/2019
Print ISSN: 1619-1366
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-1374
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-017-0638-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2019

Software and Systems Modeling 3/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Guest Editorial

Guest editorial for the special section on MODELS 2016

Regular Paper

An integrated metamodel-based approach to software model refactoring

Special Section Paper

Method engineering in information systems analysis and design: a balanced scorecard approach for method improvement

Regular Paper

Template-based model generation

Regular Paper

Enabling automated requirements reuse and configuration

Special Section Paper

What practitioners really want: requirements for visual notations in conceptual modeling