An Authoring Tool for Informal and Formal Requirements Specifications

Hähnle, Reiner; Johannisson, Kristofer; Ranta, Aarne

doi:10.1007/3-540-45923-5_16

Cited by 28 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to [23,27,44,50,51], but in accordance with the present paper, the works [2,3,28,29] describe formally founded support for RE. Similar to the present paper, the works [3,28] both focus on establishing trace links between requirements and design/architecture.…”

Section: Related Worksupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Regarding the relation between the present paper and the work in [29], while both providing support for authoring specifications, the present paper and [29] have different focuses and complement each other; the present paper focuses on tool support for tasks (I)-(IV) while [29] focuses on transformation between requirements specified in NL, the formal representation format Object Constraint Language (OCL) [71], and a semiformal representation format in between these.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Providing tool support for specifying safety-critical systems by enforcing syntactic contract conditions

Westman

Nyberg

2017

Requirements Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional safety standards such as IEC 61508 and ISO 26262 advocate a particularly stringent requirements engineering where safety requirements must be structured in a hierarchical manner and specified in accordance with the system architecture. In contrast to the stringent requirements engineering in functional safety standards, according to previous studies, requirements engineering in industry is in general of poor quality. Contracts theory has been previously shown to be suitable for supporting such a stringent requirements engineering effort; this support has also been implemented in tools. However, to use these contract-based tools, requirements must be formalized, which is a major challenge in industry. Therefore, to support current industrial requirements engineering practice and the stringent requirements engineering in functional safety standards, it is shown how tool support can be provided even when requirements, and also architectures, are not formalized. This is achieved by enforcing syntactic, yet formal, conditions in contracts theory. Despite the need for further validation, initial findings in an industrial case study indicate high potential in realizing the proposed support in an industrial setting.

show abstract

Section: Related Worksupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Providing tool support for specifying safety-critical systems by enforcing syntactic contract conditions

Westman

Nyberg

2017

Requirements Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The other way around is more feasible, since a formal description is unambiguous. There is work by Hähnle, Johannisson, and Ranta [8] in going from OCL constraints to text descriptions. Having OCL pre and post conditions make it possible to obtain better textual description for use cases.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Informal to Formal Specifications in UML

Giese

Heldal

2004

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper, we consider a way of bridging informal and formal specification. Most projects have a need for an informal description of the requirements of the system which all people involved can understand. At the same time, there is a need to make some of the requirements more formal. We present a way to relate informal requirements, in form of use cases, to more formal specifications, written in the Object Constraint Language (OCL). Our approach gives the customers of software systems a way of guiding the development of formal specifications. Conversely, the formal specification can improve the informal understanding of the system by exposing gaps and ambiguities in the informal specification.

show abstract

“…Once an OCL-based formal specification is obtained, one could even hook up to other theorem provers that support a formal OCL semantics [25]. Finally, an authoring tool for OCL constraints [41] offers assistance in generating specifications and helps to understand OCL constraints by rendering them automatically in natural language. It is currently being integrated into the KeY tool.…”

Section: Key Tool Application Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

The KeY tool

et al. 2005

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

KeY is a tool that provides facilities for formal specification and verification of programs within a commercial platform for UML based software development. Using the KeY tool, formal methods and object-oriented development techniques are applied in an integrated manner. Formal specification is performed using the Object Constraint Language (OCL), which is part of the UML standard. KeY provides support for the authoring and formal analysis of OCL constraints. The target language of KeY based development is Java Card DL, a proper subset of Java for smart card applications and embedded systems. KeY uses a dynamic logic for Java Card DL to express proof obligations, and provides a state-of-the-art theorem prover for interactive and automated verification. Apart from its integration into UML based software development, a characteristic feature of KeY is that formal specification and verification can be introduced incrementally.

show abstract

An Authoring Tool for Informal and Formal Requirements Specifications

Cited by 28 publications

References 13 publications

Providing tool support for specifying safety-critical systems by enforcing syntactic contract conditions

Providing tool support for specifying safety-critical systems by enforcing syntactic contract conditions

From Informal to Formal Specifications in UML

The KeY tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About