Towards Semantical DSMLs for Complex or Cyber-physical Systems

Blazo Nastov, Vincent Chapurlat, Christophe Dony, François Pfister


MDE is nowadays applied in the context of software engineering for complex or cyber-physical systems, to build models of physical systems that can then be verified and simulated before they are built and deployed. This article focuses on DSMLs direct formal verification and simulation of their dynamic semantics. By “direct”, we mean without transforming the DSML description into an automata-like one. This paper presents xviCore, a metamdeling language to create DSMLs equipped with an abstract syntax, a concrete syntax and a dynamic semantics. We exemplify xviCore by an integration of a metamodeling language and a formal behavioral modeling language, based on the blackboard design pattern. Formal verification techniques based on the Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) and the Temporal Boolean Difference can be then applied as demonstrated by the proposed approach.


  1. Bézivin, J., 2005. On the unification power of models. Software & Systems Modeling, vol. 4, no 2, p. 171- 188.
  2. Boldt, R. F., 2007. Combining the Power of MathWorks Simulink and Telelogic UML/SysML-based Rhapsody to Redefine MDD. Telelogic White Paper.
  3. Chapurlat, V., 2013. UPSL-SE: A model verification framework for Systems Engineering. Computers in Industry, 64(5), 581-597.
  4. Clark, T., Evans, A., Sammut, P., and Willans, J., 2004. An eXecutable metamodelling facility for domain specific language design. The 4th OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling. Technical Report TR33, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
  5. Clark, T., Sammut, P., and Willans, J. 2008. Superlanguages: developing languages and applications with XMF, Ceteva.
  6. Combemale, B., Crégut, X., Garoche, P.-L., and Thirioux, X., 2009. Essay on Semantics Definition in MDE. An Instrumented Approach for Model Verification. Journal of Software, 4(6).
  7. Douglass, B. P., 2002. Real time UML. In the 7th International Symposium FTRTFT, Oldenburg, Germany.
  8. Engelmore, R., and Morgan, T. 1988. Blackboard systems, edited by Robert Engelmore, Tony Morgan. Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
  9. Harel, D., 1987. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of computer programming, 8(3), 231-274.
  10. Harel, D., and Politi, M. 1998. Modeling reactive systems with statecharts: the STATEMATE approach. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
  11. IEC 60848, Specification language GRAFCET for sequential function charts. Second edition, 2000.
  12. Kleppe, A. G., 2007. A language description is more than a metamodel.
  13. Kohavi, Z., 1978. Switching and Finite Automata Theory. Tata McGraw Hill, Computer Science Series.
  14. Lalanda, P., 1997. Two complementary patterns to build multi-expert systems. Pattern Languages of Programs.
  15. Larnac, M., Chapurlat, V., Magnier, J., and Chenot, B., 1997. Formal Representation and Proof of the Interpreted Sequential Machine Model. EUROCAST'97, Las Palmas.
  16. Larsen, K. G., Pettersson, P., and Yi, W., 1997. UPPAAL in a nutshell. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), 1(1), 134-152.
  17. Lee, E. A., and John, I. I., 1999. Overview of the ptolemy project.
  18. Mayerhofer, T., Langer, P., Wimmer, M., and Kappel, G., 2013. xMOF: Executable DSMLs based on fUML. In Software Language Engineering (pp. 56-75). Springer International Publishing.
  19. Nastov, B., Chapurlat, V., Dony, C., and Pfister, F., 2015. “A Verification Approach from MDE Applied to Model Based Systems Engineering: xeFFBD Dynamic Semantics.” In the proceedings of CSD&M, (pp. 225- 238). Springer International Publishing.
  20. Paige, R. F., Kolovos, D. S., and Polack, F. A., 2006. An action semantics for MOF 2.0. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Applied computing (pp. 1304-1305). ACM.
  21. Rozier, K. Y., 2011. Linear temporal logic symbolic model checking. Computer Science Review, 5(2), 163- 203.
  22. Sadilek, D. A., and Wachsmuth, G., 2009. Using grammarware languages to define operational semantics of modelled languages. In Objects, Components, Models and Patterns (pp. 348-356). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  23. Schäfer, T., Knapp, A., and Merz, S. 2001. Model checking UML state machines and collaborations. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 55(3), 357-369.
  24. Scheidgen, M., and Fischer, J., 2007. Human comprehensible and machine processable specifications of operational semantics. In ECMDAFA 07, pages 157-171. Springer.
  25. Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Merks, E., and Paternostro, M., 2008. EMF: eclipse modeling framework. Pearson Education.
  26. Vandermeulen, E., Donagan, H. A., Larnac, M., and Magnier, J., 1995. The temporal boolean derivative applied to verification of extended finite state machine. Computer and Mathematics with application, Vol 30, n°2.
  27. Vandermeulen, E., 1996. Machine Séquentielle Interprétée. PhD Thesis University of Montpellier II, (in French).

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Nastov B., Chapurlat V., Dony C. and Pfister F. (2016). Towards Semantical DSMLs for Complex or Cyber-physical Systems . In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Software Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE, ISBN 978-989-758-189-2, pages 115-123. DOI: 10.5220/0005768201150123

in Bibtex Style

author={Blazo Nastov and Vincent Chapurlat and Christophe Dony and François Pfister},
title={Towards Semantical DSMLs for Complex or Cyber-physical Systems},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Software Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Software Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,
TI - Towards Semantical DSMLs for Complex or Cyber-physical Systems
SN - 978-989-758-189-2
AU - Nastov B.
AU - Chapurlat V.
AU - Dony C.
AU - Pfister F.
PY - 2016
SP - 115
EP - 123
DO - 10.5220/0005768201150123