A framework for multi-notation requirements specification and analysis

Day, Nancy A.; Joyce, Jeffrey J.

doi:10.1109/icre.2000.855583

Cited by 9 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, dynamic inconsistencies can be readily checked by formal tools. However, current composition techniques [9][10][11][12][13][14] do not fully address our problem. Indeed, they do not support the composition of heterogeneous models since they compose models in the same formalism.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…However, they do not discuss inconsistency types that can be verified and do not offer any implementation supporting their vision. More concrete composition solutions have been proposed as a way to perform semantic analysis [10,11]. In [10], the authors defines a framework to produce a HOL (High Order Logic) model from models expressed in different notations and analyze the composed model with HOL tools.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Composing Models for Detecting Inconsistencies: A Requirements Engineering Perspective

Perrouin

Brottier

Baudry

et al. 2009

Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. [Context and motivation]Ever-growing systems' complexity and novel requirements engineering approaches such as reuse or globalization imply that requirements are produced by different stakeholders and written in possibly different languages. [Question/ problem] In this context, checking consistency so that requirements specifications are amenable to formal analysis is a challenge. Current techniques either fail to consider the requirement set as a whole, missing certain inconsistency types or are unable to take heterogeneous (i.e. expressed in different languages) specifications into account. [Principal ideas/ results] We propose to use model composition to address this problem in a staged approach. First, heterogeneous requirements are translated in model fragments which are instances of a common metamodel. Then, these fragments are merged in one unique model. On such a model inconsistencies such as under-specifications can be incrementally detected and formal analysis is made possible. Our approach is fully supported by our model composition framework.[Contribution] We propose model composition as means to address flexibility needs in requirements integration. Threats to validity such as the impact of new requirements languages needs to be addressed in future work.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Composing Models for Detecting Inconsistencies: A Requirements Engineering Perspective

Perrouin

Brottier

Baudry

et al. 2009

Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…My work is comparable with tool-support generator frameworks (TGFs), which by accepting the definition of a notation, including its semantics, as input, generate tool support, such as model checking and simulation capability, as output [81,24,25,28,65,6,38]. TGFs differ in the semantic input formats (SIF) they use, and the procedure by which they obtain tool support for a notation.…”

Section: Related Work: Semantic Formalization Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An SIF, by its function, is a semantic definition language, and thus can be potentially compared with our semantic definition framework. Some TGFs adopt an existing formalism as their SIF; for example, higher-order logic [24,25], structural operational semantics [28], graph grammars [6], and forwarding attribute grammars [38]; others devise their own SIFs; for example, execution rules [81], which defines a semantics via its enabling, matching, and firing rules, and template semantics [65], which defines a semantics by instantiating values for semantic parameters and choosing or defining a set of composition operators. While TGFs strive for flexibility and extensibility, to accommodate new notations, I have strived to create a systematic semantic definition framework that clearly defines a BSML semantics.…”

Section: Related Work: Semantic Formalization Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, the big-step semantic deconstruction, its normal-form syntax, its syntactic features, the semantic aspects, and their semantic options can be all formalized in logic, using methods similar to the ones previously developed for formalizing the semantics of modelling languages [24,25,75,74]. Once a logical formalization of my semantic definition framework has been obtained, it is possible to analyze and prove various properties of a BSML, including its semantic quality attributes, formally.…”

Section: Tool Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prescriptive Semantics for Big-Step Modelling Languages

Esmaeilsabzali

Day

2010

Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the popularity of model-driven methodologies and the abundance of modelling languages, a major question for a modeller is: Which language is suitable for modelling a system under study? To answer this question, one not only needs to know the range of relevant languages for modelling the system under study, but also needs to be able to compare these languages. In this dissertation, I consider these challenges from a semantic point of view for a diverse range of behavioural modelling languages that I refer to as the family of Big-Step Modelling Languages (BSMLs). There is a plethora of BSMLs, including statecharts, its variants, SCR, un-clocked variants of synchronous languages (e.g., Esterel and Argos), and reactive modules. BSMLs are often used to model systems that continuously interact with their environments. In a BSML model, the reaction of the model to an environmental input is a big step, which consists of a sequence of small steps, each of which can be the concurrent execution of a set of transitions. To provide a systematic method to understand and compare the semantics of BSMLs, this dissertation introduces the big-step semantic deconstruction framework that deconstructs the semantic design space of BSMLs into eight high-level, independent semantic aspects together with the enumeration of the common semantic options of each semantic aspect. The dissertation also presents a comparative analysis of the semantic options of each semantic aspect to assist one to choose one semantic option over another. A key idea in the big-step semantic deconstruction is that the high-level semantic aspects in the deconstruction recognize a big step as a whole, rather than only considering its constituent transitions operationally.A novelty of the big-step semantic deconstruction is that it lends itself to a systematic semantic formalization of most of the languages in the deconstruction. The dissertation presents a parametric, formal semantic definition method whose parameters correspond to the semantic aspects of the deconstruction, and thus it produces prescriptive semantics: The manifestation of a semantic option in the semantics of a BSML can be clearly identified.The way transitions are ordered to form a big step in a BSML is a source of semantic complexity: A modeller needs to be aware of the possible orders of the execution of transitions when constructing and analyzing a model. The dissertation introduces three semantic quality attributes that each exempts a modeller from considering an aspect of ordering in big steps. The ranges of BSMLs that support each of these semantic quality attributes are formally specified. These specifications indicate that achieving a semantic quality attribute in a BSML is a cross-cutting concern over the choices of its different semantic options. The semantic quality attributes together with iii the semantic analysis of individual semantic options can be used in tandem to assist a modeller or a semanticist to compare two BSMLs or to create a new, desired BSML from scratch....

show abstract

Composing Models at Two Modeling Levels to Capture Heterogeneous Concerns in Requirements

Brottier

Traon

Nicolas

2010

Software Composition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Requirements specification is initially scattered in numerous partial models (viewpoints), describing heterogeneous concerns (typically functional and non-functional ones). To define these concerns, requirements analysts prefer describing them separately with metamodels so that they can be properly identified, reused and tooled. The production of one unified view of requirements from separate viewpoints is a complex issue which requires a composition process working at two levels of modeling. At the meta-level, separate "of-the-shelf" metamodels allow defining either concerns or variation in the operational semantics. These metamodels have to be composed into a core metamodel, which captures the information and semantics needed for expressing and analyzing the requirements of a dedicated application domain (e.g. real-time critical systems, telecom services). At the instance-level, viewpoints are composed to produce a global requirements model, which has to be conformant with the core metamodel. Although the same composition mechanism is used for both levels, we emphasize in this paper the strong coupling between the two steps and the difficulty to make both compositions consistent with each other. We thus propose a process for dealing with two-level of composition. The process is illustrated in the context of a platform specialized for requirements analysis purposes.

show abstract

A framework for multi-notation requirements specification and analysis

Cited by 9 publications

References 31 publications

Composing Models for Detecting Inconsistencies: A Requirements Engineering Perspective

Composing Models for Detecting Inconsistencies: A Requirements Engineering Perspective

Prescriptive Semantics for Big-Step Modelling Languages

Composing Models at Two Modeling Levels to Capture Heterogeneous Concerns in Requirements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About