1 towards formal manipulations of scenarios represented by high-level message sequence charts loïc...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Towards formal manipulations of scenarios represented by High-level Message Sequence Charts
Loïc Hélouet
Claude Jard
Benoît Caillaud
IRISA/PAMPA (INRIA/CNRS/Univ. Rennes)Campus de Beaulieu, F-35042 RENNES,France.
http://www.irisa.fr/[email protected]
2
Motivations
Formal methods and tools to improve the development process of (distributed) software
Need to instrument at early stages of the development Interest of graphical scenario languages like Message
Sequence Charts in the SDL framework or Sequence Diagrams of the popular Unified Modelling Language
Problems with their formal semantics Problems with their declarative (high-level) nature :
Normal forms ? State-finiteness ? Executability ?
3
Contributions
Partial-order semantics of the High-level Message Sequence Charts (HMSC is the ITU/Z.120 standard)
Effective notion of equivalence based on event-structures and graph-grammars
Normal form of HMSCs Towards new efficient methods :
to decide divergence, to simulate and to check properties
4
Outline
MSC et HMSC Event structures Partial order semantics of HMSC Covering graphs of event structures Graph grammars Regularity of graph grammars Equivalence Applications Conclusion and perspectives
5
Basic Message Sequence Charts (BMSC)
Instances, events and messages
Ordering of events : due to sequentiality of
instances due to message causality
Partial order M= ( E,<,,A,I ) E : events < : causal ordering : labelling of events
: E -> A x I A : action names I : instance names
6
High-level Message Sequence Charts (HMSC)
Hierarchical graph of MSCs
Sequence, choice and loop operators
Non-deterministic choice
Sequence is communication-closed but without synchronization
7
Sequencing
Instance by instance, maximal events of the first HMSC are linked to the minimal events of the second HMSC
8
Choice : union of scenarios
9
Recursion (unfolding)
10
Specifications which are not implementable
Non-local choices Divergence
11
Infinite family of partial orders
Paths of the HMSC graph form (generally) an infinite family of partial orders
This family can be uniquely represented by an event structure (communication closed assumption)
12
Event structures
Compact representation of partial order families. Used in concurrency theory
ES = (E, <, #, , A , I ) E : events < : partial order (causality) # : conflict relation
(symmetric, inherited by causality)
: labelling
13
Reduction to minimal conflicts
14
From HMSCs to event structures
Sequencing : as for partial orders; conflicts are inherited
Choice : creates new conflicts
Recursion : unfolding
15
HMSC partial order semantics
HMSC Semantics = the corresponding event structure
Strong notion of equivalence given by isomorphism of event structures
Isomorphism of (infinite) graphs can be computed using graph grammars [Caucal 92] such that :
the graph is regular the graph is finitely branching
Based on the computation of normal forms of the grammars
16
Non regular specifications
17
Irregular graphs
Cannot be represented by a graph grammar
18
Covering graphs with conflict inheritance edges
19
Transformation into a regular graph
20
Graph grammar
Hyperarc :
s1. . . .sn
Hypergraph :
Graph + hyperarcs Rule : (Hyperarc,
Hypergraph) Graph grammar =
G = (Axiom,Rules)
21
Graph rewriting
22
From HMSCs to graph grammars (ends)
23
From HMSCs to graph grammars (sequence)
24
From HMSCs to graph grammars (choice)
25
From HMSCs to graph grammars (recursion)
26
From HMSCs to graph grammars (conflict inheritance arcs)
Context management
27
Example (HMSC)
28
Example (graph grammar)
29
Example (graph grammar)
30
Properties of covering graphs
Covering graphs with inheritance edges are regular (can be finitely described by graph grammars)
Branching of conflicts is finite Branching of causality is generally infinite But ignoring them preserves the isomorphism of the
event structures (the infinite branching can be reconstructed from the simplified graph)
31
Decision of equivalence
Let us consider two HMSCs H1 and H2 Compute their graph grammars G1 and G2 Replace the inheritance edges that are not made from choice to
choice by the corresponding conflicts (minimization of basic event structures)
Compute grammars G’1 and G’2 by eliminating redundancies (to avoid global optimization)
Compute FBG1 and FBG2 by eliminating infinite branchings within G’1 and G’2
Compute FNG1 and FNG2, the normal forms of FBG1 and FBG2 If FBG1 and FBG2 have the same normal forms up to a
renaming, then H1 and H2 are equivalent
32
Normal forms
Global transformation to ensure a certain distance between the hyperarcs
PolynomialA rule which is not normalized
33
Example of two equivalent HMSCs
34
Their covering graph
35
Decision of divergence
An HMSC is not divergent iff the communication graph of each simple loop is symmetricCan be computed on the graph grammar by finite rewriting
36
Summary
Towards formal manipulations of scenario languages Partial order semantics of the HMSC standard Equivalence defined as a structure isomorphism Use of graph grammars and of recent decision
algorithms
ftp://ftp.inria.fr/INRIA/publication/RR/RR-3499.ps.gz
37
Perspectives
Short term : Implementation Weaker notions of equivalence Animation (using normal forms)
Middle term : HMSCs with values Parallel composition Integration in the UML meta-model
Long term : Decision of properties Quantitative analysis using Max + techniques Generation of squeletons, protocol synthesis