50120140503001

International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), ISSN 0976-6367(Print),
ISSN 0976 - 6375(Online), Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 01-08 © IAEME
1
FORMAL LANGUAGES: A COMPARISION OF PROCESS ALGEBRA AND
MODEL ORIENTED APPROACH
Arun Kumar Singh1
and Vinod Kumar singh2
1
Electronics Engineering Department, IET, UPTU, Lucknow, India
2
Professor, Electronics Engineering Department, IET, UPTU, Lucknow, India
ABSTRACT
A Formal language is an abstraction of the general characteristic of programming languages.
It is used for system analysis, requirement analysis and system design. It describes the system at
much higher level of abstraction than any programming language. Formal language can be
categorized into model oriented, algebraic, process oriented, logical, imperative, and hybrid.
Although there are several formal methods and languages, this paper emphasized basically on model
oriented languages B, VDM, Z and process oriented languages CSP, CCS. Issues like abstraction,
ambiguity, consistency, completeness, concurrency, looseness, readability and reusability have
proven to be key for articulating this paper. This paper also addresses the scope of B and Event-B
modeling along with other related technologies.
Keywords: Formal Language, Model Oriented, Process Oriented, Z, VDM, CCS, CSP, B and
Event-B.
1. INTRODUCTION
To make sure that some solution solves a problem correctly, first of all it must be stated
correctly [1]. Formal methods provide frameworks within which one can specify, develop and verify
systems in a systematic, rather than an adhoc, manner [2]. Formal methods are system design
techniques that use rigorously specified mathematical models to build software and hardware
systems. Formal methods are used to reveal ambiguities, incompleteness and inconsistencies of the
system. Design flaws can be detected in the early stage of system development process using formal
methods hence increasing the possibility of reducing cost of testing and debugging phase. One
tangible product of the application of a formal method is a formal specification. Formal method only
determines what the problem is and how it will be said, is laid by the formal language.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ENGINEERING &
TECHNOLOGY (IJCET)
ISSN 0976 – 6367(Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online)
Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 01-08
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijcet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2014): 8.5328 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com
IJCET
© I A E M E

2
A Formal language is an abstraction of the general characteristic of programming languages.
It is the set of all strings permitted by the rule of formation. It can be used in the various phases of
software development model. Requirements analysis, system analysis and system design, are the
main phases of software development model in which it is used. Formal language can be categorized
into model oriented, algebraic, process oriented, logical, imperative, and hybrid.
Formal methods are mainly concerned with the specification and verification of the system. In this
paper, we have tried to belittle precise on verification rather exploring the specification. Verification
is nothing but the proof that specifies whether the program satisfies the specification or not.
Verification can be done by either writing the program in actual close to the specification or
automatically i.e. by the notion of model checking. Coming on to the specification, we have explored
it in section 2. In section 3, the emphasis is on different formal specification styles. In section 4,
some criteria have been elaborated and evaluated for some model oriented and algebraic approached
formal languages, section 5 present general discussions on Event-B, a formal method supported by
RODIN platform, an Eclipse-based IDE for Event-B,B methods and some related techniques, lastly
section 6 concludes the paper.
2. SPECIFICATION
Specification is formulating the requirement of the system. In other words it is the description
of desired system properties. It generally focuses on what rather than how. When specification is
given in some natural language along with some figures, tables, examples or scenarios it is known as
informal specification. Unified modeling language when used for specification with precise syntax
and loose semantics it is known as semi formal specification. A formal model when used for
specification with precise syntax, semantics and proof theory then it is known as formal
specification. Generally speaking, a formal specification is the expression in some formal language
and at some level of abstraction it is a collection of properties that the system should satisfy [1].
A formal specification lays emphasis more on completeness and consistency. It covers all situations
and has no contradictions. Formal methods allow progressive refinement of an abstract specification
into a more concrete specification using well-defined rules. The development of formal specification
provides insights and understanding of the software requirement and design. A formal specification
defines a system in an implementation independent way by describing its internal state in terms of
abstract data type which is characterized only by the operation allowed over them.
A formal specification language provides the notation, set of objects and precise rule defining which
objects satisfy each specification. The notation acts as a syntactic domain and the set of objects as
semantic domain. A syntactic domain is the set of rules for determining whether the statement is
syntactically correct or not. The semantic domain refers to the rules for interpreting sentences in a
precise and meaningful way in the given domain. Hence we can say that formal method is based on
some well defined formal specification language. Several specification languages with different
semantic abstraction functions for a single semantic domain encourage complementary specification
of different aspects of a system. Different kinds of formal specification language have different
properties but they share some common properties and they are as follows:
• Reliability of the software increases
• Chances of error deduce
• Helps in software maintenance
• Helps in proper documentation
• Creating reusable modules

3
3. FORMAL SPECIFICATION STYLES
Formal specification techniques differ mainly by the particular specification paradigm they
rely on. There are different categories of formal specification languages depending upon the
approaches they adopt.
3.1 MODEL ORIENTED
In model oriented approach the specification of the system is done by constructing the
mathematical model of the system. It specifies the admissible system state at some arbitrary time
using mathematical entities like sets, relation and first order predicate logic. A system is seen as a set
of state and operations that changes the state. An invariant is defined as a predicate that must be
satisfied in all states. For each operation a precondition is defined and the operation can take place
only if the precondition for that state is satisfied by the current state. For each operation a post
condition is also defined and this predicate must be true at the modified state that results after the
operation has taken place. The Vienna Development Method [3, 4], Z specification language [5, 6]
and B [7] are the main model oriented languages.
3.2 ALGEBRAIC APPROACHES
In algebraic approach the admissible system behavior is specified in terms of properties or
conditional equations that document the effect of composing function. In this approach one has to
state explicitly which properties it wants the system to have, after which any model that satisfies the
theory seems to be acceptable. The best known algebraic language is ACT ONE [8], ACT TWO [9]
and the other being CASL [10], LARCH [11], OBJ [12].
3.3 TRANSITION BASED APPROACHES
The admissible system behavior is characterized by the required transition in state machines.
There is always the corresponding output state for each and every input state, triggering event and
Boolean expression. Promela [13], which is a language for the specification of interactive concurrent
systems and Statechart [14] are the best known transition based language.
3.4 PROCESS ALGEBRA APPROACHES
The process corresponds to the behavior of the system. It is used to describe distributed and
parallel system in algebraic manner where concurrency is the main issue. Calculus of communicating
system (CCS) [15] and Concurrent sequential process (CSP) [16], designed to model asynchronous
processes are the examples of the approach used by the process algebra. They are the best known
process modeling languages.
3.5 LOGIC BASED APPROACHES
The system behavior in logic based approach is expressed by the logical expression. These
logical expressions are based on traces of allowed operation call. Commonly used languages in logic
based approach are: Temporal logic of actions (TLA) and Real time logic (RTL). TLA uses a logic
that combines temporal logic and logic of actions for specifying and reasoning about concurrent as
well as reactive discrete systems [17], TLA+ [18] is a specification language based on TLA. Real
time logic (RTL) [19] is a first order logic with a predicate which relates the events of a system to
their time of occurrence for the specification of real-time systems.

4
3.6 REACTIVE APPROACHES
The system behavior is specified in such a complete manner that its specification can run on
any abstract machine as a structured collection of process. Petri nets [20] and SDL [21] are example
of reactive approaches.
3.7 HYBRID APPROACHES
In hybrid approach the specification language describes the system in all stages of the
development. The two best example of hybrid approaches are RSL [22] the specification language
associated with the rigorous approach to industrial software engineering (RAISE) development
methods [23] and LOTOS [24], a specification notation intended for the formal specification of open
distributed systems, and in particular for those related to the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI)
computer network architecture[25,26].
4. COMPARISON OF MODEL ORIENTED AND PROCESS ALGEBRAIC APPROACH
This section elaborated as well as evaluated the criteria or issues for which the model
oriented and process algebraic approach can be compared and the best can be analyzed depending
upon the issue. In process algebraic approach the CCS and CSP and in model oriented approach the
Z, VDM and B have been considered (fig1).
Criteria Model Oriented Approach Process Algebraic Approach
Z VDM B CSP CCS
Abstraction α β α α α
Ambiguity γ α γ β α
Consistency γ α β α α
Completeness γ β β α α
Concurrency θ θ γ β α
Looseness β β β γ γ
Readability β α γ α α
Reusability γ α α β β
Fig.1
The evaluation is done by considering the various applications of these two approaches. The
symbol α is given to the strongest, β is given for strong and γ is given for adequate. The symbol θ is
used for representing poorer in that criterion.
By evaluating the issues of these model oriented and process oriented languages it can be seen that
some language is better in some way than the other language. However it can be concluded that
depending upon the problem the approach is identified and further the language is chosen according
to the suitability of the properties specified by the system.
5. THE B, EVENT-B AND RELATED TECHNIQUES
In this section, we briefly investigate how the B is related with other similar techniques, the
tool support for development in B and Event-B.
5.1 THE B METHOD
The B method is a state-based method that involves the integration of set theory, predicate
calculus and generalized substitution language. B and Z [5] both have evolved from the same root
and are based on ZF set theory but then there are number of differences. The state changes in Z are

5
expressed by the use of before and after predicates, whereas in B the predicate transformer semantics
of B allow a notation closer to programming.
Invariants in Z are encapsulated into the operation description which alters its meaning. The
invariants in B are checked against the state changes described by operation and events to ensure
consistency. The logical properties of pre-condition and guards make a more careful distinction in B
which is not clearly distinguished in Z.
The refinement calculus used in B for defining the refinement between models in the event-
based B approach is very close to Back’s action systems.
In TLA the temporal operator’s semantics is expressed over traces of states whereas in B the
semantics is expressed in the weakest precondition calculus.
TLA+ [18] can be compared to B, since it includes set theory with the € operator of Hilbert.
With respect to safety property both semantics are equivalent but the trace semantics of TLA+ allows
an expression of fairness and eventuality properties that is not directly available in B.
VDM [3] is a method with similar objectives to classical B. Like B it uses partial functions to
model data, which can lead to meaningless terms and predicates e.g. when a function is applied
outside its domain. VDM uses a special three valued logic to deal with undefinedness.
ASM [27, 28] and B share common objectives related to the design and the analysis of
software and hardware systems. ASM and B both methods provide the link between human
understanding and formulation of real-world problems and the deployment of their computer-based
solutions [29].
B is based on set theory and ASM is based on the algebraic framework with an abstract state
change mechanism. An Abstract state, the signature and some finite set of rules define the abstract
state machine. The rules provide an operational style that is very useful for specifying the model and
the mechanism for programming.
The B formal approach supports a step-wise development from basic abstract specifications
to a detailed design of a system in the refinement steps. Through refinements the design of the
detailed system is verified which conforms to the abstract specification.
Consistency checking and refinement checking are two main proof activities in
B.Consistency checking is used to show that the operations of a machine preserve the invariant while
refinement checking, is used to show that one machine is a valid refinement of another.
The B tools provide significant automated proof support for generating the proof obligations
and discharging them. These proofs help us to discover new system invariants providing a clear
insight into the system and augment our understanding of why a design decision should work. They
also help us to understand the complexity of the problem and the correctness of the solutions.
These activities are supported by industrial tools, such as Click'n'Prove [30] B tool and the B-
toolkit [31].
If each of proof obligations generated by B-tools is proved, then the machine is consistent
and refinement is correct (in the case of refinement checking). The B-tools have an interactive prover
and an automatic prover. Normally the more complex proof obligations are not proved automatically
and need to be proved interactively. The tools also provide automatic translation of low level B
specifications into executable code.
Another available tool ProB [32] is a model checker and an animator for the B-Method. ProB
allows interactively/automatically animation of B specifications, and can also be used to
systematically model check a B specification check a specification for errors.
5.2 EVENT-B
Event-B [33] has been developed from the B-Method using many ideas of Action Systems
[34]. The system behavior in Event-B is modeled by a collection of state variables and a collection of

6
guarded actions that act on the state variables (action system approach), also the mathematical
language for defining state structures and events is typed set theory (B method).
The B Method is aimed at software development; Event-B is aimed at system development. It is a
formal technique that consists of describing rigorously the problem in the abstract model, introducing
solutions or design details in refinement steps to obtain more concrete specifications, and verifying
that the proposed solutions are correct. When modeling a system aspect of the non-software parts of
the system and its environment may also be included. This structure allows, using Event-B for
varying modeling domains, e.g., reactive, distributed and concurrent systems [35], sequential
programs [36], or electronic circuits [37], not being constrained to semantics tailored to a particular
domain.
The Rodin platform [38], an Eclipse-based IDE for Event-B, provides effective supports for
refinements and mathematical proof. It is a powerful and effective toolset for Event-B development.
It is extensible and configurable and supports a seamless integration between modeling and proving.
4. CONCLUSION
In this paper the first focus was on formal method and then formal languages came into seen.
This paper also explores the scope of Event-B modeling. Two application of formal language came
into picture i.e. specification and verification. Specification was further explored with different
formal specification techniques like model oriented, process, algebraic, transition, reactive, hybrid,
Model oriented approach (B, VDM and Z) and process algebraic approach (CCS and CSP) is
compared on basis of abstraction, ambiguity, consistency, completeness, concurrency, looseness,
readability and reusability. Event-B is one of the formal methods which is successfully used to model
different complex systems and can be used for development of distributed and safety critical system.
It is supported by an Eclipse-based IDE, RODIN, which provides tools for working with Event-B
models.
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
The author’s acknowledge the valuable suggestions of Er. Brijesh Pandey, department of
Computer Science and Engineering, GITM, Lucknow and Prof. Girish Chandra, Department of
Computer Science and Engineering, IET, UPTU, Lucknow.
REFERENCES
[1] Axel van Lamsweerde, Formal specification: a roadmap, Proceedings of the Conference on
The Future of Software Engineering, p.147-159, June 04-11, 2000, Limerick, Ireland.
[2] Jeannette M. Wing, A Specifier's Introduction to Formal Methods, Computer, volume 23
issue 9, pages 8-23, September 1990.
[3] C. B. Jones. Systematic Software Development Using VDM. Prentice-Hall International,
1986.
[4] C.B. Jones. Software Development: A Rigorous Approach. Prentice-Hall International,
Englewood Cliffs, 1980.
[5] J. M. Spivey. Understanding Z: A specification language and its formal semantics.
Cambridge University Press, 1987.
[6] J. M. Spivey. An introduction to Z and formal specification. IEEE Software Engineering
Journal, 4(1), 40–50, 1989.
[7] Jean-Raymond Abrial. The B-Book: Assigning Programs to Meanings. Cambridge University
Press, 1996.

7
[8] H.Ehrig and B.Mahr.Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification I.Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1985.
[9] H.Ehrig and B.Mahr.Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification II.Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1990.
[10] Egidio Astesiano, Michel Bidoit, Helene Kirchner, Bernd Krieg-Bruckner, Peter D. Mosses,
Donald Sannella, Andrzej Tarlecki. CASL: the common algebraic specification language,
Theoretical Computer Science, volume 286 issue 2, pages 153-196, 17 September 2002.
[11] J. V.Guttang, J.J. Homing, and J.M. Wing. Larch in five easy pieces. Technical Report 5,
DEC Systems Research Center, July 1985.
[12] K.Futatsugi, J.A. Goguen, J.P Jouannnaud, and J.Meseguer. Principles of OBJ2.In
Proceedings of ACM POPL, pages 52-66, 1985.
[13] G.J. Holzmann. Design and Validation of Protocols. Prentice-Hall, 1990.
[14] D. Harel. Statecharts: A Visual Formalism for Complex Systems. Science of Computer
Programming 8:231–274, 1987.
[15] Robin Milner. A Calculus of Communicating Systems, Springer Verlag, ISBN 0-387-10235-
3. 1980.
[16] C. A. R. Hoare .Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-153289-8.
1985.
[17] Leslie Lamport. The Temporal Logic of Actions. ACM Transactions on Programming
Languages and Systems, 16(3):872-923, May 1994.
[18] Leslie Lamport. Specifying Systems: The TLA+ Language and Tools for Hardware and
Software Engineers, Addison-Wesley, 2003.
[19] Farnam Jahanian , Aloysius K. Mok , Douglas A. Stuart, Formal Specification of Real-time
Systems, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 1988
[20] Wolfgang Reisig: Petri Nets and Algebraic Specifications. Theoretical Computer Science
80(1): 1-34, 1991.
[21] F. Belina , D. Hogrefe, The CCITT-specification and description language SDL, Computer
Networks and ISDN Systems, v.16 n.4, p.311-341, March 1989.
[22] RAISE Language Group, T.: The RAISE Specification Language. BCS Practitioner Series.
Prentice Hall, 1992.
[23] RAISE Method Group, T.: The RAISE Development Method. BCS Practitioner Series.
Prentice Hall, 1995.
[24] T. Bolognesi and E. Brinksma, Introduction to the ISO Specification Language Lotos,
Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 25-59, 1987.
[25] ISO - Information Processing Systems - "Basic Reference Model for Open Systems
Interconnection", IS 7498, 1983.
[26] Proceedings of the IEEE - Special issue on OSI, Vol.71. No.12, Dec. 1983.
[27] E. Borger and R. Stark. Abstract State Machines. A Method for High- Level System Design
and Analysis. Springer Verlag, April 2003.
[28] Y. Gureitch. Specification and Validation Methods, Chapter, “Evolving Algebras 1993:
Lipari Guide”, Pages 9–36,Oxford University Press, 1995.Ed. E. Borger.
[29] D Cansell, D Mery. Foundations of B Method. Computing and Informatics, Vol 22, 1-31,
2003.
[30] Jean-Raymond Abrial and Dominique Cansell. Click'n' Prove: Interactive proofs within set
theory. In TPHOLs, pages 1-24, 2003.
[31] B-Core (UK) Limited, Oxon, UK. B-Toolkit, On-line manual. 1999. Available at
http://www.b-core.com/ONLINEDOC/Contents.html.
[32] Michael Leuschel and Michael J. Butler. ProB : A model checker for B. In FME, pages 855-
874, 2003.

8
[33] Jean-Raymond Abrial and Stefan Hallerstede. Refinement, Decomposition and Instantiation
of Discrete Models: Application to Event-B. Fundamentae Informatica, 77(1-2), 2007.
[34] Ralph-Johan Back. Refinement Calculus II: Parallel and Reactive Programs. In J. W.
deBakker, W. P. deRoever, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Stepwise Refinement of Distributed
Systems, volume 430 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 67–93, Mook, The
Netherlands, May 1989. Springer-Verlag.
[35] Jean-Raymond Abrial, Dominique Cansell, and Dominique M´ery. A mechanically proved
and incremental development of IEEE 1394 tree identify protocol. Formal Aspects of
Computing, 14(3):215–227, 2003.
[36] Jean-Raymond Abrial. Event based sequential program development: Application to
constructing a pointer program. In Keijiro Araki, Stefania Gnesi, and Dino Mandrioli,
editors,FME 2003: Formal Methods, volume 2805 of LNCS, pages 51–74. Springer, 2003.
[37] Stefan Hallerstede. Parallel hardware design in B. In Didier Bert, Jonathan P. Bowen, Steve
King, and Marina A. Wald´en, editors, ZB, volume 2651 of LNCS, pages 101–102. Springer,
2003.
[38] Jean-Raymond Abrial, A System Development Process with Event-B and the Rodin
Platform. In: Butler, M., Hinchey, M., Larrondo-Petrie, M.M. (eds.) ICFEM 2007. LNCS,
vol. 4789, pages. 1–3. Springer, Heidelberg, 2007.
[39] Arun Kumar Singh and Vinod Kumar Singh, “Modeling of Dsdv Routing Protocol for Ad
Hoc Networks using Event-B”, International journal of Computer Engineering & Technology
(IJCET), Volume 5, Issue 2, 2013, pp. 108 - 116, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6367, ISSN Online:
0976 – 6375.

50120140503001

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to 50120140503001 (20)

More from IAEME Publication (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

50120140503001