Abstract
A big-step modelling language (BSML) is a language in which a model can respond to an environmental input via a sequence of small steps, each of which may consist of the concurrent execution of a set of transitions. BSMLs are a popular class of modelling languages that are regularly reincarnated in different syntactic and semantic variations. In our previous work, we deconstructed the semantics of many existing BSMLs into eight high-level, conceptually intuitive semantic aspects and their semantic options, which together constitute a semantic design space for BSMLs. In this work, we describe a parametric semantic definition schema based on this deconstruction for defining formally the semantics of a wide range of BSMLs. A semantic definition in our framework is prescriptive in that the high-level semantic aspects of a BSML are manifested clearly as orthogonal parts of the semantic definition. Our goal is to produce a formal semantic definition that is accessible to various stakeholders of the semantics.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Esmaeilsabzali, S., Day, N.A., Atlee, J.M., Niu, J.: Semantic criteria for choosing a language for big-step models. In: RE 2009, pp. 181–190 (2009)
Esmaeilsabzali, S., Day, N.A., Atlee, J.M., Niu, J.: Deconstructing the semantics of big-step modelling languages. Submitted to Requirements Engineering Special Issue of RE 2009 (October 2009)
Harel, D.: Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming 8(3), 231–274 (1987)
von der Beeck, M.: A comparison of statecharts variants. In: Langmaack, H., de Roever, W.-P., Vytopil, J. (eds.) FTRTFT 1994 and ProCoS 1994. LNCS, vol. 863, pp. 128–148. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)
Maraninchi, F., Rémond, Y.: Argos: an automaton-based synchronous language. Computer Languages 27(1/3), 61–92 (2001)
Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A.: Reactive modules. Formal Methods in System Design 15(1), 7–48 (1999)
Berry, G., Gonthier, G.: The Esterel synchronous programming language: Design, semantics, implementation. Science of Computer Programming 19(2), 87–152 (1992)
Heninger, K.L., Kallander, J., Parnas, D.L., Shore, J.E.: Software requirements for the A-7E aircraft. Technical Report 3876, United States Naval Research Laboratory (1978)
Heitmeyer, C., Jeffords, R., Labaw, B.: Automated consistency checking of requirements specifications. ACM TOSEM 5(3), 231–261 (1996)
Ashcroft, E.A., Wadge, W.W.: Generality considered harmful: A critique of descriptive semantics. Technical Report CS-79-01, University of Waterloo, Cheriton School of Computer Science (1979)
Ashcroft, E.A., Wadge, W.W.: R/ for semantics. ACM TOPLAS 4(2), 283–294 (1982)
Pnueli, A., Shalev, M.: What is in a step: On the semantics of statecharts. In: Ito, T., Meyer, A.R. (eds.) TACS 1991. LNCS, vol. 526, pp. 244–264. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)
Hoare, T., Jifeng, H.: Unifying Theories of Programming. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)
OMG: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure, v2.1.2, Formal/2007-11-01 (2007)
Leveson, N.G., Heimdahl, M.P.E., Hildreth, H., Reese, J.D.: Requirements specification for process-control systems. TSE 20(9), 684–707 (1994)
Harel, D., Naamad, A.: The Statemate semantics of statecharts. ACM TOSEM 5(4), 293–333 (1996)
Kang, K.C., Cohen, S.G., Hess, J.A., Novak, W.E., Peterson, A.S.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, SEI, Carnegie Mellon University (1990)
Pezzè, M., Young, M.: Constructing multi-formalism state-space analysis tools: Using rules to specify dynamic semantics of models. In: ICSE 1997, pp. 239–249 (1997)
Day, N.A., Joyce, J.J.: Symbolic functional evaluation. In: Bertot, Y., Dowek, G., Hirschowitz, A., Paulin, C., Théry, L. (eds.) TPHOLs 1999. LNCS, vol. 1690, pp. 341–358. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Dillon, L.K., Stirewalt, K.: Inference graphs: A computational structure supporting generation of customizable and correct analysis components. IEEE TSE 29(2), 133–150 (2003)
Niu, J., Atlee, J.M., Day, N.A.: Template semantics for model-based notations. IEEE TSE 29(10), 866–882 (2003)
Lu, Y., Atlee, J.M., Day, N.A., Niu, J.: Mapping template semantics to SMV. In: ASE 2004, pp. 320–325 (2004)
Baresi, L., Pezzè, M.: Formal interpreters for diagram notations. ACM TOSEM 14(1), 42–84 (2005)
Gao, J., Heimdahl, M.P.E., Wyk, E.V.: Flexible and extensible notations for modeling languages. In: Dwyer, M.B., Lopes, A. (eds.) FASE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4422, pp. 102–116. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Prout, A., Atlee, J.M., Day, N.A., Shaker, P.: Semantically configurable code generation. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 705–720. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Mosses, P.D.: Action Semantics. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 26. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)
Huizing, C., Gerth, R.: Semantics of reactive systems in abstract time. In: Huizing, C., de Bakker, J.W., Rozenberg, G., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) REX 1991. LNCS, vol. 600, pp. 291–314. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Esmaeilsabzali, S., Day, N.A. (2010). Prescriptive Semantics for Big-Step Modelling Languages. In: Rosenblum, D.S., Taentzer, G. (eds) Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering. FASE 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6013. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12029-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12029-9_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-12028-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-12029-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)