From Formal Techniques to Well-Founded Software Development Methods

  • Egidio Astesiano
  • Gianna Reggio
  • Maura Cerioli
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2757)


We look at the main issue of the Colloquium “Formal Methods at the Crossroads from Panacea to Foundational Support” reflecting on our rather long experience of active engagement in the development and use of formal techniques. In the years, we have become convinced of the necessity of an approach more concerned with the real needs of the software development practice. Consequently, we have shifted our work to include methodological aspects, learning a lot from the software engineering practices and principles.

After motivating our current position, mainly reflecting on our own experience, we suggest a Virtuous Cycle for the formal techniques having the chance of a real impact on the software development practices. Then, to provide some concrete illustration of the suggested principles, we propose and advocate a strategy that we call Well-Founded Software Development Methods, of which we outline two instantiations.


Software Development Formal Method Sequence Diagram Label Transition System Formal Technique 
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. 1.
    Astesiano, E., Bidoit, M., Kirchner, H., Krieg-Brückner, B., Mosses, P.D., Sannella, D., Tarlecki, A.: CASL: the Common Algebraic Specification Language. T.C.S. 286(2), 153–196 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Astesiano, E., Krieg-Brückner, B., Kreowski, H.-J. (eds.): IFIP WG 1.3 Book on Algebraic Foundations of System Specification. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Astesiano, E., Reggio, G.: Direct Semantics of Concurrent Languages in the SMoLCS Approach. IBM Journal of Research and Development 31(5), 512–534 (1987)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Astesiano, E., Reggio, G.: SMoLCS-Driven Concurrent Calculi. In: Ehrig, H., Kowalski, R., Levi, G., Montanari, U. (eds.) CAAP 1987 and TAPSOFT 1987. LNCS, vol. 249, pp. 169–201. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Astesiano, E., Reggio, G.: Formalism and Method. T.C.S. 236(1,2), 3–34 (2000)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Astesiano, E., Reggio, G.: Labelled Transition Logic: An Outline. Acta Informatica 37(11-12), 831–879 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Astesiano, E., Reggio, G.: Knowledge Structuring and Representation in Requirement Specification. In: Proc. SEKE 2002. ACM Press, New York (2002), Available at Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Astesiano, E., Reggio, G.: Consistency Issues in Multiview Modelling Techniques. Technical Report DISI–TR–03–05, DISI, Università di Genova, Italy (2003); To appear in Proc. WADT 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Astesiano, E., Reggio, G.: Tight Structuring for Precise UML-based Requirement Specifications: Complete Version. Technical Report DISI–TR–03–06, DISI, Università di Genova, Italy (2003), Available at
  10. 10.
    Coscia, E., Reggio, G.: JTN: A Java-targeted Graphic Formal Notation for Reactive and Concurrent Systems. In: Finance, J.-P. (ed.) FASE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1577, pp. 77–97. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Damm, W., Harel, D.: LSCs: Breathing Life into Message Sequence Charts. Formal Methods in System Design 19(1), 45–80 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ehrig, H., Mahr, B.: A Decade of TAPSOFT: Aspects of Progress and Prospects in Theory and Practice of Software Development. In: Mosses, P.D., Schwartzbach, M.I., Nielsen, M. (eds.) CAAP 1995, FASE 1995, and TAPSOFT 1995. LNCS, vol. 915, pp. 3–24. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harel, D.: From Play-In Scenarios to Code: An Achievable Dream. IEEE Computer 34(1), 53–60 (2001)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: How did Software Get so Reliable Without Proof? In: Gaudel, M.-C., Woodcock, J.C.P. (eds.) FME 1996. LNCS, vol. 1051, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jackson, M.: Software Requirements & Specifications: a Lexicon of Practice, Principles and Prejudices. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jackson, M.: Problem Frames: Analyzing and Structuring Software Development Problems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jones, C.: Some Mistakes I Have Made and What I Have Learned FromThem. In: Astesiano, E. (ed.) ETAPS 1998 and FASE 1998. LNCS, vol. 1382, p. 7. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    OMG Architecture Board MDA Drafting Team. Model Driven Architecture (MDA) (2001), Available at
  19. 19.
    Meyer, B.: Object-Oriented Software Construction. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meyer, B.: Software Engineering in the Academy. Computer 34(5), 28–35 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Minasi, M.: The Software Conspiracy. Mc Graw Hill, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mosses, P.D.: CoFI: The Common Framework Initiative for Algebraic Specification and Development. In: Bidoit, M., Dauchet, M. (eds.) CAAP 1997, FASE 1997, and TAPSOFT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1214, pp. 115–137. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parnas, D.L.: “Formal Methods” Technology Transfer Will Fail. J. Systems Software 40(3), 195–198 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rational. Rational Unified Process© for System Engineering SE 1.0 (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reggio, G., Astesiano, E.: An Extension of UML for Modelling the non Purely- Reactive Behaviour of Active Objects. Technical Report DISI–TR–00–28, DISI, Università di Genova, Italy (2000), Available at
  26. 26.
    Reggio, G., Astesiano, E., Choppy, C., Hussmann, H.: Analysing UML Active Classes and Associated State Machines – A Lightweight Formal Approach. In: Maibaum, T. (ed.) FASE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1783, p. 127. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reggio, G., Cerioli, M., Astesiano, E.: Towards a Rigorous Semantics of UML Supporting its Multiview Approach. In: Hussmann, H. (ed.) FASE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2029, p. 171. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reggio, G., Larosa, M.: A Graphic Notation for Formal Specifications of Dynamic Systems. In: Fitzgerald, J., Jones, C.B. (eds.) FME 1997. LNCS, vol. 1313. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    UML Revision Task Force. OMG UML Specification 1.3 (1999), Available at
  30. 30.
    Wasserman, A.I.: Toward a Discipline of Software Engineering. IEEE Software 13(6), 23–31 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wieringa, R.J.: Requirements Engineering: Frameworks for Understanding. John Wiley, Chichester (1996)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yourdon, E.: Modern Structured Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Egidio Astesiano
    • 1
  • Gianna Reggio
    • 1
  • Maura Cerioli
    • 1
  1. 1.DISIUniversità di GenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations