The main aim of this report is to provide an introductory tutorial on the Abstract State Machines (ASM) specification method for software engineering to an audience already familiar with the Temporal Logic of Actions (TLA$^+$) method. The report asks to what extent the ASM and TLA$^+$ methods are complementary in checking specifications against stated requirements and proposes some answers. A second aim is to provide a comparison between different executable frameworks that have been developed for the same specification languages. Thus, the ASM discussion is complemented by executable Corinthian ASM (CASM) and CoreASM models. Similarly, the two TLA$^+$ specifications presented, which rely on the TLC and Apalache model checkers, respectively, are complemented by a Quint specification, a new language developed by Informal Systems to serve as a user-friendly syntax layer for TLA$^+$. For the basis of comparison we use the specification of the Alternating Bit (AB) protocol because it is a simple and well-understood protocol already extensively analysed in the literature. While the models reported here and developed with the two methods are semantically equivalent, ASMs and Quint are better suited for top-down specification from abstract requirements by iterative refinement. TLA$^+$ seems to be more easily used bottom-up, to build abstractions on top of verified components in spite of the fact that it, too, emphasizes iterative refinement. In the final section, the report begins to scope out the possibility of a homomorphism between the specification of the AB protocol and its finite-state machine (FSM) through state space visualizations, motivated by a search for a formal decomposition method.
翻译:本报告的主要目的是为熟悉Temporal Lologic of Action(TLA$ $ $ $ $ $ 美元)方法的受众提供软件工程简易国家机器规格的介绍性辅导,报告询问ASM和TLA$ $ $ $ 美元的方法在多大程度上补充了对照所述要求检查规格,并提出了一些答案。第二个目的是比较为同一规格语言开发的不同可执行框架。因此,ASM的讨论得到了可执行的Corinthian ASM(CASM)和CoreASM模型的补充。同样,提出的两个TLA$ $ 美元规格分别依靠TLC和Apalache模型检查器的补充了Quint规格,一种由非正式系统开发的新语言,作为TLA$ $ 美元 的方便用户的合成税层。为了比较基础,我们使用“自下向下调的精确比特(AB)协议”的规格,因为它是一个简单且准确的直观协议,在文献中已经广泛分析过的版本。在TLLA 格式中,一个模型是更具有动机性的格式,从这里和最精确的版本报告,一种最精确的方法是用来进行。