A Proof Assistant Based Formalization of MDE Components

  • Mounira Kezadri
  • Benoît Combemale
  • Marc Pantel
  • Xavier Thirioux
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7253)


Model driven engineering (MDE) now plays a key role in the development of safety critical systems through the use of early validation and verification of models, and the automatic generation of software and hardware artifacts from the validated and verified models. In order to ease the integration of formal specification and verification technologies, various formalizations of the MDE technologies were proposed by different authors using term or graph rewriting, proof assistants, logical frameworks, etc.

The use of components is also mandatory to improve the efficiency of system development. Invasive Software Composition (ISC) has been proposed by A\(\ss\)man in [1] to add a generic component structure to existing Domain Specific Modeling Languages in MDE. This approach is the basis of the ReuseWare toolset.

We present in this paper an extension of a formal embedding of some key aspects of MDE in set theory in order to formalize ISC and prove the correctness of the proposed approach with respect to the conformance relation with the base metamodel. The formal embedding we rely on was developed by some of the authors, presented in [25] and then implemented using the Calculus of Inductive Construction and the Coq proof-assistant. This work is a first step in the formalization of composable verification technologies in order to ease its integration for DSML extended with component features using ISC.


Composition Operator Object Constraint Language Model Composition Proof Assistant Model Drive Engineering 
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.
    Aßmann, U.: Invasive software composition. Springer-Verlag New York Inc. (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azurat, A.: Mechanization of invasive software composition in F-logic. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Conference on International Conference on Computer Engineering and Applications, pp. 89–94. World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society, WSEAS (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basu, A., Bozga, M., Sifakis, J.: Modeling heterogeneous real-time components in BIP. In: Fourth IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, SEFM 2006, pp. 3–12. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bensalem, S., Bozga, M., Nguyen, T., Sifakis, J.: Compositional verification for component-based systems and application. IET Software 4(3), 181–193 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernstein, P., Halevy, A., Pottinger, R.: A vision for management of complex models. ACM Sigmod Record 29(4), 55–63 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boronat, A., Meseguer, J.: An algebraic semantics for mof. Formal Asp. Comput. 22(3-4), 269–296 (2010)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, S.: Extending standard UML with model composition semantics. Science of Computer Programming 44(1), 71–100 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Quesada, J.: Maude: specification and programming in rewriting logic. Theoretical Computer Science 285(2), 187–243 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crouzen, P., Lang, F.: Smart Reduction. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Orejas, F. (eds.) FASE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6603, pp. 111–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fabro, M.D.D., Valduriez, P.: Towards the efficient development of model transformations using model weaving and matching transformations. Software and System Modeling 8(3), 305–324 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giorgino, M., Strecker, M., Matthes, R., Pantel, M.: Verification of the Schorr-Waite Algorithm – From Trees to Graphs. In: Alpuente, M. (ed.) LOPSTR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6564, pp. 67–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heidenreich, F., Henriksson, J., Johannes, J., Zschaler, S.: On Language-Independent Model Modularisation. In: Katz, S., Ossher, H., France, R., Jézéquel, J.-M. (eds.) Transactions on Aspect-Oriented Software Development VI. LNCS, vol. 5560, pp. 39–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henriksson, J.: A Lightweight Framework for Universal Fragment Composition with an application in the Semantic Web, PhD thesis. TU Dresden (January 2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jeanneret, C.: An Analysis of Model Composition Approaches. Master’s thesis. Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (2007-2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johannes, J.: Component-Based Model-Driven Software Development. Ph.D. thesis, vorgelegt an der Technischen Universität Dresden Fakultät Informatik (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kiczales, G., Lamping, J., Menhdhekar, A., Maeda, C., Lopes, C., Loingtier, J.M., Irwin, J.: Aspect-Oriented Programming. In: Aksit, M., Auletta, V. (eds.) ECOOP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1241, pp. 220–242. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. Journal of the ACM 42(4), 741–843 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lumpe, M., Schneider, J.: A form-based meta-model for software composition. Science of Computer Programming 56(1-2), 59–78 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Object Management Group, Inc.: Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Core Specification (January 2006), (final Adopted Specification)
  20. 20.
    Picard, C., Matthes, R.: Coinductive graph representation: the problem of embedded lists. In: Electronic Communications of the EASST, Special Issue Graph Computation Models, GCM 2010 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Poernomo, I.: The meta-object facility typed. In: Haddad, H. (ed.) SAC, pp. 1845–1849. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Poernomo, I.: Proofs-as-Model-Transformations. In: Vallecillo, A., Gray, J., Pierantonio, A. (eds.) ICMT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5063, pp. 214–228. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Poernomo, I., Terrell, J.: Correct-by-Construction Model Transformations from Partially Ordered Specifications in Coq. In: Dong, J.S., Zhu, H. (eds.) ICFEM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6447, pp. 56–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Romero, J.R., Rivera, J.E., Durán, F., Vallecillo, A.: Formal and tool support for model driven engineering with maude. Journal of Object Technology 6(9), 187–207 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thirioux, X., Combemale, B., Crégut, X., Garoche, P.L.: A Framework to Formalise the MDE Foundations. In: Paige, R., Bézivin, J. (eds.) International Workshop on Towers of Models (TOWERS), Zurich, pp. 14–30 (June 2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Troya, J., Vallecillo, A.: Towards a Rewriting Logic Semantics for ATL. In: Tratt, L., Gogolla, M. (eds.) ICMT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6142, pp. 230–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Xie, F., Browne, J.: Verified systems by composition from verified components. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 28(5), 277–286 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mounira Kezadri
    • 1
  • Benoît Combemale
    • 2
  • Marc Pantel
    • 1
  • Xavier Thirioux
    • 1
  1. 1.IRITUniversité de ToulouseFrance
  2. 2.IRISAUniversité de Rennes 1France

Personalised recommendations