REFINEMENT PROPAGATION - Towards Automated Construction of Visual Specifications

Irina Rychkova, Alain Wegmann


Creation and transformation of visual specifications is driven by modeler’s design decisions. After a design decision has been made, the modeler needs to adjust the specification to maintain its correctness. The number of adjustments might make the design process tedious for large specifications. We are interested in techniques that will reduce the modeler’s obligation to control specification correctness. Every single transformation of the visual specification can be captured by the notion of refinement used in formal methods. In this work we present the technique that supports a stepwise refinement of visual specifications based on calculations. We use refinement calculus as a logic for reasoning about refinement correctness. When a design decision is made by the modeler, the necessary adjustments are calculated based on rules of refinement propagation. Refinement propagation can automate the specification adjustment and enforce its correctness.


  1. Baar, T. and Markovic, S. (2006). A graphical approach to prove the semantic preservation of UML/OCL refactoring rules. In Ershov Memorial Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
  2. Back, R.-J. (1978). On the Correctness of Refinement Steps in Program Development. PhD thesis, bo Akademi, Department of Computer Science, Helsinki, Finland. Report A-1978-4.
  3. Back, R.-J. (1989). Changing data representation in the refinement calculus. In 22nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pages 231-242. IEEE.
  4. Back, R.-J. (2005). Incremental software construction with refinement diagrams. In Broy, Gunbauer, H. and Hoare, editors, Engineering Theories of Software Intensive Systems, NATO Science Series II: Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry, pages 3-46. Springer, Marktoberdorf, Germany.
  5. Back, R.-J., Mikhajlova, A., and von Wright, J. (2000). Class refinement as semantics of correct object substitutability. Formal Aspects of Computing, 12(1):18-40.
  6. Back, R.-J. and von Wright, J. (1998). Refinement Calculus: A Systematic Introduction. Springer-Verlag. Graduate Texts in Computer Science.
  7. B örger, E. (2003). The asm refinement method. Formal aspects of computing.
  8. B örger, E. and Stärk, R. (2003). Abstract State Machines: A Method for High-Level System Design and Analysis. Springer-Verlag.
  9. Broy, M. (1993). Interaction refinement-the easy way. In Program Design Calculi: Proceedings of the 1992 Marktoberdorf International Summer School. Springer-Verlag.
  10. Dijkstra, E. W. (1971). Notes on structured programming. In Structured Programming. Academic Press.
  11. Mikhajlova, A. (1998). Consistent extension of components in presence of explicit invariants. In Workshop on Component-Oriented Programming (WCOP'98), ECOOP'98. TUCS General Publication Series.
  12. Mikhajlova, A. and Sekerinski, E. (1997). Class refinement and interface refinement in object-oriented programs. In FME 7897: Industrial Applications and Stengthened Foundations of Formal Metohds, volume 1313, pages 82-101. Springer.
  13. Miller, J. (1995). Living Systems. University of Colorado Press.
  14. Morgan, C. and Gardiner, P. H. B. (1990). Data refinement by calculation. Acta Informatica, 27(6):481-503.
  15. Muskens, J., Bril, R. J., and Chaudron, M. R. V. (2005). Generalizing consistency checking between software views. In WICSA, pages 169-180.
  16. OCL (2003). OCL 2.0 Final Adopted Specification. OMG.
  17. Pons, C. (2006). Heuristics on the definition of UML refinement patterns. In SOFSEM, pages 461-470.
  18. RM-ODP (1995). Reference model of open distributed processing part 1. Draft International Standard (DIS). Helsinki, Finland.
  19. UML (2007). Unified Modeling Language (UML), version 2.1.1. OMG,
  20. Wegmann, A. (2003). On the systemic enterprise architecture methodology (seam). In International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS).
  21. Wegmann, A. and Naumenko, A. (2001). Conceptual modeling of complex systems using an rm-odp based ontology. In EDOC, pages 200-211.
  22. Weinberg, G. M. (1975). An Introduction to General Systems Thinking. New York: Wiley & Sons.
  23. Wirth, N. (1971). Program development by stepwise refinement. Communications of the ACM, 14:221-227.
  24. Woodcock, J. and Davies, J. (1996). Using Z. Prentice Hall.
  25. Xia, Y. and Glinz, M. (2004). Extending a graphic modeling language to support partial and evolutionary specification. apsec, 00:18-27.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Rychkova I. and Wegmann A. (2007). REFINEMENT PROPAGATION - Towards Automated Construction of Visual Specifications . In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS, ISBN 978-972-8865-90-0, pages 196-204. DOI: 10.5220/0002394401960204

in Bibtex Style

author={Irina Rychkova and Alain Wegmann},
title={REFINEMENT PROPAGATION - Towards Automated Construction of Visual Specifications},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,
TI - REFINEMENT PROPAGATION - Towards Automated Construction of Visual Specifications
SN - 978-972-8865-90-0
AU - Rychkova I.
AU - Wegmann A.
PY - 2007
SP - 196
EP - 204
DO - 10.5220/0002394401960204