Combining Models for Interactive System Modelling

Abstract

Our approach for modelling interactive systems has been to develop models for the interface and interaction which are light-weight but with an underlying formal semantics. Combined with traditional formal methods to describe functional behaviour, this provides the ability to create a single formal model of interactive systems and consider all parts (functionality, user interface and interaction) with the same rigorous level of formality. The ability to convert the different models we use from one notation to another has given us a set of models which describe an interactive system (or parts of that system) at different levels of abstraction in ways most suitable for the domain but which can be combined into a single model for model-checking, theorem proving etc. There are, however, many benefits to using the individual models for different purposes throughout the development process. In this chapter we provide examples of this using the nuclear power plant control system as an example.

Supporting the Analysis of Safety Critical User Interfaces

“…The PVS model of the Alaris device, as discussed in [43], involves two main theories describing 38 pump actions and 18 user interface actions. The specication and theorems can be found on Github 14 . The analysis involved 138 theorems based on the templates.…”

“…Bowen and Reeves' work [14] separates the interactivity of the environment from its functionality. Their work employs a notation (Presentation Interaction Model -PIM) that describes the interactivity and Z or µcharts (a variant of statecharts [40]) that describes the functionality.…”

Interaction Modelling for IoT

“…As such, we build on approaches which seek to support interaction design in safety-critical domains through the use of combining models at different levels of focus and abstraction (such as [23]- [26] etc.) As has been described previously, the use of different types of models adopted in such approaches leads to a wide-range of benefits over and above the provision of formal descriptions [27] and we envisage these benefits will also be seen for IoT development.…”

Reliable Visual Analytics, a Prerequisite for Outcome Assessment of Engineering Systems

“…For instance, Weyers [72] presents a visual modeling language that enables (interactive) description of interaction logic and algorithmic transformation into Petri-net based and executable representation of a user interface. Bowen et al [13] use Z-based specifications to describe interaction processes, which offers formal verification capabilities and helps to identify erroneous implementations, as the authors demonstrate in the context of safety critical scenarios. Another example is the use of a Petri-net based modeling approach proposed by Navarre et al [44] addressing user interfaces and interaction in airplane cockpits.…”