Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Download full chapter Leveraging Applications Of Formal Methods Verification And Validation Discussion Dissemination Applications 7Th International Symposium Isola 2016 Imperial Corfu Greece October 10 14 2016 Proceedings pdf docx
Download full chapter Leveraging Applications Of Formal Methods Verification And Validation Discussion Dissemination Applications 7Th International Symposium Isola 2016 Imperial Corfu Greece October 10 14 2016 Proceedings pdf docx
Download full chapter Leveraging Applications Of Formal Methods Verification And Validation Discussion Dissemination Applications 7Th International Symposium Isola 2016 Imperial Corfu Greece October 10 14 2016 Proceedings pdf docx
https://textbookfull.com/product/automated-technology-for-
verification-and-analysis-14th-international-symposium-
atva-2016-chiba-japan-october-17-20-2016-proceedings-1st-edition-
cyrille-artho/
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-visual-
computing-12th-international-symposium-isvc-2016-las-vegas-nv-
usa-december-12-14-2016-proceedings-part-ii-1st-edition-george-
bebis/
https://textbookfull.com/product/nasa-formal-methods-8th-
international-symposium-nfm-2016-minneapolis-mn-usa-
june-7-9-2016-proceedings-1st-edition-sanjai-rayadurgam/
Tiziana Margaria
Bernhard Steffen (Eds.)
Leveraging Applications
of Formal Methods,
LNCS 9953
123
Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9953
Commenced Publication in 1973
Founding and Former Series Editors:
Gerhard Goos, Juris Hartmanis, and Jan van Leeuwen
Editorial Board
David Hutchison
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
Takeo Kanade
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Josef Kittler
University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
Jon M. Kleinberg
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Friedemann Mattern
ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
John C. Mitchell
Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Moni Naor
Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
C. Pandu Rangan
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India
Bernhard Steffen
TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
Demetri Terzopoulos
University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Doug Tygar
University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
Gerhard Weikum
Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7407
Tiziana Margaria Bernhard Steffen (Eds.)
•
Leveraging Applications
of Formal Methods,
Verification and Validation
Discussion, Dissemination,
Applications
7th International Symposium, ISoLA 2016
Imperial, Corfu, Greece, October 10–14, 2016
Proceedings, Part II
123
Editors
Tiziana Margaria Bernhard Steffen
Lero TU Dortmund
Limerick Dortmund
Ireland Germany
Symposium Chair
Tiziana Margaria Lero, Ireland
Program Chair
Bernhard Steffen TU Dortmund, Germany
Program Committee
Yamine Ait Ameur IRIT-ENSEEIHT, France
Idir Ait-Sadoune SUPELEC, France
Christel Baier TU Dresden, Germany
Ezio Bartocci TU Wien, Austria
Dirk Beyer LMU Munich, Germany
Fabrizio Biondi Inria, France
Manfred Broy TUM, Germany
Ferruccio Damiani University of Turin, Italy
Boris Duedder TU Dortmund, Germany
Ylies Falcone University of Grenoble, France
Alessandro Fantechi Università di Firenze, Italy
Michael Felderer University of Innsbruck, Austria
Paul Gibson Telecom Sud Paris, France
Stefania Gnesi CNR, Italy
Kim Guldstrand Larsen Aalborg University, Denmark
Dilian Gurov KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Klaus Havelund Jet Propulsion Laboratory, USA
George Heineman WPI, USA
Holger Hermanns Saarland University, Germany
Axel Hessenkämper Hottinger Baldwin Messtechnik GmbH, Germany
Falk Howar Clausthal University of Technology, Germany
Marieke Huisman University of Twente, The Netherlands
Reiner Hähnle TU Darmstadt, Germany
Stefan Jaehnichen TU Berlin, Germany
Jens Knoop TU Wien, Austria
Anna-Lena Lamprecht University of Limerick, Ireland
Axel Legay Inria, France
Martin Leucker University of Lübeck, Germany
Jonas Lundberg Linneaus University, Sweden
Tiziana Margaria Lero, Ireland
VIII Organization
Additional Reviewers
Vahdat Abdelzad University of Ottawa, Canada
Michał Antkiewicz University of Waterloo, Canada
Davide Basile ISTI-CNR Pisa, Italy
Bernhard Beckert Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
Lenz Belzner LMU, Germany
Saddek Bensalem Verimag, France
Gérard Berry Collège de France, France
Marius Bozga Verimag, France
Tomas Bures Charles University Prag, Czech Republic
Laura Carnevali STLAB, Italy
Sofia Cassel Uppsala University, Sweden
Vincenzo Ciancia ISTI-CNR, Italy
Loek Cleophas TU Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Francesco Luca De Angelis University Geneva, Switzerland
Rocco De Nicola IMT Lucca, Italy
Julien Delange CMU-SEI, USA
Giovanna Di Marzo CUI, Switzerland
Serugendo
Maged Elaasar Modelware Solutions, USA
Hilding Elmqvist Mogram AB, Sweden
Uli Fahrenberg Inria, France
Alessio Ferrari CNR, Italy
John Fitzgerald Newcastle University, UK
Thomas Given-Wilson Inria, France
Sorren Hanvey University of Limerick, Ireland
Anne E. Haxthausen Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
Robert Heinrichs TU Berlin, Germany
Rolf Hennicker LMU, Germany
Phillip James Swansea University, UK
Einar Broch Johnsen University of Oslo, Norway
Gabor Karsai Vanderbilt University, USA
Organization IX
Doctoral Symposium
Industrial Track
RERS Challenge
STRESS
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
Static versus Dynamic Verification in Why3, Frama-C and SPARK 2014 . . . 461
Nikolai Kosmatov, Claude Marché, Yannick Moy, and Julien Signoles
Security and Privacy of Protocols and Software with Formal Methods . . . . . . 883
Fabrizio Biondi and Axel Legay
XXIV Contents – Part I
What are the trends in the three domains: formal specification and verification,
model-based engineering, and programming, which can be considered to support
a unification of these domains. We want to discuss whether the time is ripe for
another attempt to bring things closer together.
2 Contributions
The paper contributions in this track are introduced below. The papers are
ordered according to the sessions of the track: (1) opinions, (2) more concrete,
(3) meta-level considerations, (4) domain-specific approaches, (5) tools and
frameworks view, and (6) panel. Within each track the papers are ordered to
provide a natural flow of presentations.
2.1 Opinions
Selic [16] (Programming ⊂ Modeling ⊂ Engineering) takes the position that mod-
els and modeling have a much broader set of purposes than just programming. It
points out that there is a direct conflict between modeling and programming, as
modeling is based on abstracting away irrelevant details whereas programming
requires full implementation oriented details. In the end, the paper investigates
the question of the complex relationship between modeling and programming.
Finally it comes up with the question of whether modelers can become program-
mers, and it concludes that it has to deal with the question whether high level
modeling languages can be used as implementation languages.
Seidewitz [15] (On a Unified View of Modeling and Programming – Position
Paper) considers a unified view of modeling and programming. Seidewitz takes
the position that some software models specify behavior precisely enough that
they can be executed, and that all programs can be considered models, at least
of the execution they specify. He concludes that modeling and programming are
actually not so different after all, and there might be conversions. He claims
that the language design legacy of UML is largely grounded on the old view of
sharply separating models and programs, complicating their future convergence,
and that it is perhaps time to move forward in the direction of new generations
of unified modeling and programming languages.
Haxthausen and Peleska [5] (On the Feasibility of a Unified Modelling and
Programming Paradigm) argue that we should not expect there to be a single
“best” unified modeling, programming and verification paradigm in the future.
They, on the contrary, argue that a multi-formalism approach is more realistic
and useful. Amongst the reasons mentioned is that multiple stake holders will
not be able to agree on a formalism. The multi-formalism approach requires to
translate verification artifacts between different representations. It is illustrated
by means of a case study from the railway domain, how this can be achieved,
using concepts from the theory of institutions, formalized in category theory.
6 M. Broy et al.
level of the underlying (modeling) languages, which ranges from mere presenta-
tion to dual executability as required for fully exploiting the presented testing
approach. In this sense, the corresponding 5-level hierarchy can be regarded as
a specific top-level view for merging the modeling and programming landscapes.
Kugler [6] (Unifying Modelling and Programming: A Systems Biology Per-
spective) suggests to explore the topic of unifying modeling and programming in
the context of computational systems biology, which is a field in its early stages,
and therefore potentially more receptive to new ideas. Here, for example cells
can be effectively described as biological programs. Software and system develop-
ment share several of the main challenges that computational systems biology is
facing: making models amendable to formal and scalable reasoning, using visual
languages, combining different programming languages, rapid prototyping, and
program synthesis.