Towards Static Analysis of Executable DSMLs Using Model Typing

1. Combemale, B., Crgut, X., Pantel, M.: A Design pattern to build executable DSMLs and associated V and V tools. In: 19th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), pp. 282–287 (2012)

   Google Scholar 

2. Cánovas Izquierdo, J.L., Cabot, J.: Enabling the collaborative definition of DSMLs. In: Salinesi, C., Norrie, M.C., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) CAiSE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7908, pp. 272–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

   Chapter  Google Scholar 

3. Steel, J., Jézéquel, J.M.: On Model Typing. Software and Systems Modeling 6(4), 401–413 (2007)

   Article  Google Scholar 

4. Guy, C., Combemale, B., Derrien, S., Steel, J.R.H., Jézéquel, J.-M.: On model subtyping. In: Vallecillo, A., Tolvanen, J.-P., Kindler, E., Störrle, H., Kolovos, D. (eds.) ECMFA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7349, pp. 400–415. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

   Chapter  Google Scholar 

5. Sun, W., Combemale, B., Derrien, S., France, R.B.: Using model types to support contract-aware model substitutability. In: Van Gorp, P., Ritter, T., Rose, L.M. (eds.) ECMFA 2013. LNCS, vol. 7949, pp. 118–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

   Chapter  Google Scholar 

6. AGG. http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/gragra/agg/ (last visited 1 December 2014)

7. Mohammadi, R.G., Barforoush, A.A: Formal Definition of Executable DSMLs: A Graph-based Approach. Technical Report, Computer Engineering and Information Technology Faculty, Amirkabir University of Technology (2015). http://ceit.aut.ac.ir/islab/researches/modeling/TR.pdf

8. Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamental Theory for Typed Attributed Graphs and Graph Transformation based on Adhesive HLR Categories. Fundamenta Informaticae 74(1), 31–61 (2006)

   Google Scholar 

9. Ernst, M.D: Static and dynamic analysis: synergy and duality. In: Proceedings of the ACM-SIGPLAN-SIGSOFT Workshop on Program Analysis for Software Tools and Engineering, pp. 35–35 (2004)

   Google Scholar 

10. Nielson, F., Nielson, H.R., Hankin, C.: Principles of Program Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York Inc, Secaucus (1999)

    Book  Google Scholar 

11. Agesen, O.: Constraint-based type inference and parametric polymorphism. In: LeCharlier, B. (ed.) SAS 1994. LNCS, vol. 864, pp. 78–100. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

12. Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or aproximation of fixpoints. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 238–252 (1977)

    Google Scholar 

13. Clarke Jr., E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking. MITPress, Cambridge (1999)

    Google Scholar 

14. Object Management Group. Semantics of a Foundational Subset for Executable UML Models (fUML), Version 1.1, Augest 2013. http://www.omg.org/spec/FUML/1.1/

15. Object Management Group. Action Language for Foundational UML (Alf), Version 1.0.1, September 2013. http://www.omg.org/spec/ALF/1.0.1/

16. Abdelhalim, I., Sharp, J., Schneider, S., Treharne, H.: Formal verification of tokeneer behaviours modelled in fUML using CSP. In: Dong, J.S., Zhu, H. (eds.) ICFEM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6447, pp. 371–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

17. Graw, G., Herrmann, P.: Transformation and Verification of Executable UML Models. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 101, 3–24 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

18. Planas Hortal, E.: Lightweight and static verification of UML executable models. Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya, PhD Thesis (2013). http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/116449

19. Cabot, J., Claris, R., Guerra, E., De Lara, J.: A UML/OCL Framework for the Analysis of Graph Transformation Rules. Software and Systems Modeling 9(3), 335–357 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

20. De Lara, J., Bardohl, R., Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Attributed Graph Transformation with Node Type Inheritance. Theoretical Computer Science 376(3), 139–163 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

21. Taentzer, G., Rensink, A.: Ensuring structural constraints in graph-based models with type inheritance. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, pp. 64–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

22. Baldan, P., Corradini, A., König, B.: Unfolding graph transformation systems: theory and applications to verification. In: Degano, P., De Nicola, R., Meseguer, J. (eds.) Concurrency, Graphs and Models. LNCS, vol. 5065, pp. 16–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

23. Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Habel, A., Pennemann, K.H.: Theory of Constraints and Application Conditions: From Graphs to High-level Structures. Fundamenta Informaticae 74(1), 135–166 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

24. Plump, D.: Termination of Graph Rewriting is Undecideable. Fundamental Informatica 33(2), 201–209 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

25. Varró, D., Varró–Gyapay, S., Ehrig, H., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Termination analysis of model transformations by Petri Nets. In: Corradini, A., Ehrig, H., Montanari, U., Ribeiro, L., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) ICGT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4178, pp. 260–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

26. Plotkin, G.D.: A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 60(61), 17–139 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

27. Dorman, A., Heindel, T.: Structured operational semantics for graph rewriting. In: ICE (2011), pp. 37–51 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

28. Object Management Group. OMG Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification, Version 2.4.1, August 2011. http://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/2.4.1

29. Hvid Hansen, H., Ketema, J., Luttik, B., Mousavi, M.R., van de Pol, J., dos Santos, O.M.: Automated verification of executable UML models. In: Aichernig, B.K., de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M. (eds.) Formal Methods for Components and Objects. LNCS, vol. 6957, pp. 225–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references