Form Method Syst Des (2007) 30:177–178DOI 10.1007/s10703-006-0032-z

Foreword: Selected papers from the ninth internationalworkshop on formal methods for industrial criticalsystems (FMICS 04), Linz, Austria

Andrew Butterfield · Juan C. Bicarregui ·Alvaro Arenas

Published online: 29 December 2006C© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

The FMICS workshop series promotes the use of formal methods for industrial applicationsby supporting research in this area and by serving as a forum for the exchange of ideasbetween researchers and practitioners, in both industry and academia.

This issue contains selected papers from the Ninth International Workshop on FormalMethods for Industrial Critical Systems (FMICS 04), which was held in Linz, Austria, asa co-located event of the 19th Automated Software Engineering Conference (ASE 2004).Seventeen papers were presented with authors from as many countries spanning formalmethodologies as diverse as state-charts, model-checking, mixed intuitionistic logic andBoolean equation systems; and applications ranging from operating systems, network ser-vices, communications protocols and middleware behaviour, to flight guidance. For thisspecial issue, the top five papers based on the reviewers evaluation were selected and revisedafter the workshop.

The first paper builds on the paper that won the EASST best paper award at the workshop.“HySAT: An Efficient Proof Engine for Bounded Model Checking of Hybrid Systems”,by M. Franzle and C. Herde, presents a bounded model checker for linear hybrid systems,incorporating a tight integration of a DPLL-based pseudo-Boolean SAT solver and a linearprogramming routine as core engine.

The second paper is “From NuSMV to SPIN: Experiences with Model Checking FlightGuidance Systems” by Y. Choi. It reports the results of an investigation into the relativepitfalls and benefits of using the explicit model checker Spin on commercial Flight GuidanceSystems (FGSs) at Rockwell-Collins, based on prior experience with the use of the symbolicmodel checker NuSMV on the same system.

A. ButterfieldO’Reilly Institute, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Irelande-mail: Andrew.Butterfield@cs.tcd.ie

J. C. Bicarregui · A. ArenasCCLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UKe-mails: J.C.Bicarregui@rl.ac.uk; A.E.Arenas@rl.ac.uk

Springer

178 Form Method Syst Des (2007) 30:177–178

Next, in “Object Oriented Concepts Identification from Formal B Specifications”, A.Idani and Y. Ledru address the graphical representation of static aspects of B specificationusing UML class diagrams.

In the paper “Early Verification and Validation of Mission Critical Systems”, C. Ponsard,P. Massonet, J. Molderez, A. van Lamsweerde and H. Tran Van describe how to achieveearly verification and validation of system properties by applying a goal-oriented requirementengineering framework which combines complementary semiformal and formal notations.This allows the analyst to formalize only when and where needed and also preserves optimalcommunication with stakeholders and developers.

Finally, M. Valero and J. van de Pol describe in “An Abstract Interpretation Toolkit forµCRL” a toolkit that assists in the task of generating abstract approximations of processalgebraic specifications written in the language µCRL. Abstractions are represented byModal Labelled Transition Systems, which are mixed transition systems with may and mustmodalities. The approach permits inference of satisfaction or refutation of safety and livenessproperties expressed in the (action- based) µ-calculus.

We are grateful to ‘Formal Methods in System Design’ for providing the vehicle for usto publish this collection of papers in the journal, and for a very pleasant collaboration; toFormal Methods Europe, the iTrust Network and ERCIM for their financial support; andto the PC members and additional reviewers involved in selecting the papers. We are alsoparticularly grateful to all those who made the workshop such a success by their participation.

Springer