Realizability Criteria for Compositional MSC

  • Arjan Mooij
  • Judi Romijn
  • Wieger Wesselink
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4019)


Synthesizing a proper implementation for a scenario-based specification is often impossible, due to the distributed nature of implementations. To be able to detect problematic specifications, realizability criteria have been identified, such as non-local choice.

In this work we develop a formal framework to study realizability of compositional MSC [GMP03]. We use it to derive a complete classification of criteria that is closely related to the criteria for MSC from [MGR05]. Comparing specifications and implementations is usually complicated, because different formalisms are used. We treat both of them in terms of a single formalism. Therefore we extend the partial order semantics of [Pra86, KL98] with a way to model deadlocks and with a more sophisticated way to address communication.


Partial Order Sequential Composition Parallel Composition Realizability Criterion Alternative Characterization 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [AEY05]
    Alur, R., Etessami, K., Yannakakis, M.: Realizability and verification of MSC graphs. Theoretical Computer Science 331, 97–114 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [BAL97]
    Ben-Abdallah, H., Leue, S.: Syntactic detection of process divergence and non-local choice in Message Sequence Charts. In: Brinksma, E. (ed.) TACAS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1217, pp. 259–274. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [BM95]
    Baeten, J.C.M., Mauw, S.: Delayed choice: an operator for joining Message Sequence Charts. In: Formal Description Techniques, pp. 340–354 (1995)Google Scholar
  4. [Gen05]
    Genest, B.: Compositional Message Sequence Charts (CMSCs) are better to implement than MSCs. In: Halbwachs, N., Zuck, L.D. (eds.) TACAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3440, pp. 429–440. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [GMP03]
    Gunter, E.L., Muscholl, A., Peled, D.A.: Compositional Message Sequence Charts. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 5(1), 78–89 (2003); An earlier version appeared at TACAS 2001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [Hey00]
    Heymer, S.: A semantics for MSC based on Petri-Net components. In: Proceedings of SAM 2000: 2nd Workshop on SDL and MSC (2000)Google Scholar
  7. [HJ00]
    Hélouët, L., Jard, C.: Conditions for synthesis of communicating automata from HMSCs. In: Proceedings of 5th FMICS Workshop (2000)Google Scholar
  8. [KL98]
    Katoen, J.-P., Lambert, L.: Pomsets for Message Sequence Charts. In: Proceedings of SAM 1998: 1st Workshop on SDL and MSC (1998)Google Scholar
  9. [MG05]
    Mooij, A.J., Goga, N.: Dealing with non-local choice in IEEE 1073.2’s standard for remote control. In: Amyot, D., Williams, A.W. (eds.) SAM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3319, pp. 257–270. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [MGR05]
    Mooij, A.J., Goga, N., Romijn, J.M.T.: Non-local choice and beyond: Intricacies of MSC choice nodes. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, pp. 273–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [MM01]
    Meenakshi, B., Madhusudan, P.: Beyond Message Sequence Graphs. In: Hariharan, R., Mukund, M., Vinay, V. (eds.) FSTTCS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2245, pp. 256–267. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [MRW06]
    Mooij, A.J., Romijn, J.M.T., Wesselink, J.W.: Realizability criteria for compositional MSC. Computer Science Report 06-11, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (March 2006)Google Scholar
  13. [Pra86]
    Pratt, V.: Modelling concurrency with partial orders. International Journal of Parallel Programming 15(1), 33–71 (1986)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [Ren99]
    Reniers, M.A.: Message Sequence Chart: Syntax and Semantics. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (June 1999)Google Scholar
  15. [UKM03]
    Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Synthesis of behavioral models from scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 29(2), 99–115 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arjan Mooij
    • 1
  • Judi Romijn
    • 1
  • Wieger Wesselink
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceTechnische Universiteit EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations