From scenarios to timed automata: building specifications from users requirements

Somé, Stéphane S.; Dssouli, Rachida; Vaucher, Jean

doi:10.1109/apsec.1995.496953

Cited by 37 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Each of these papers describes one formal treatment of unification of UCs into a statechart similar in semantics to our unified UC statechart 17 . Several others, including Somé et al [21], van Lamsweerde et al [25], Khriss et al [13], Somé [22], and Damas et al [3] describe algorithms and methods for synthesizing various domain models, including one in the statecharts notation, from UCs. Detailed comparisons of the three methods on which UCUM is based, among a number of other scenario and statechart unification methods, are offered by Saiedian et al [20] and by Liang et al [16].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unified use case statecharts: case studies

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the results of case studies evaluating a method of unifying use cases (UCs) to derive a unified statechart model of the behavior of the domain of a proposed computer-based system. An evaluation of the unification method, the obtained statechart model of the domain, the method's and model's feedback on the UCs themselves, and how the method is used in requirements engineering practice was carried out by examining 58 software requirements specifications produced by 189 upper-year undergraduate and graduate students. The results of these studies independently confirm some of the benefits of building a unified SC mentioned in the works of Glinz; Whittle and Schumann; and Harel, Kugler, and Pnueli.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unified use case statecharts: case studies

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Automated Teller Machine (ATM) system is a common example, discussed by Somé et al [12], Whittle and Schumann [15], and Koskimies et al [8]. [12] permits timeouts and global timed transitions, but all scenarios share a single initial condition, and user actions are mapped one-to-one with system responses (aside from time-influenced transitions).…”

Section: Statechart Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hsia et al [5] discuss a process for scenario analysis that includes conditional branching. Somé et al [12] present three ways of composing scenarios: sequential, alternative, and parallel. Glinz [2] includes iteration as well.…”

Section: Composition Of Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Representing Embedded System Sequence Diagrams as a Formal Language

Latronico

Koopman

2001

≪UML≫ 2001 — The Unified Modeling Language. Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Sequence Diagrams (SDs) have proven useful for describing transaction-oriented systems, and can form a basis for creating statecharts. However, distributed embedded systems require special support for branching, state information, and composing SDs. Actors must traverse many SDs when using a complex embedded system. Current techniques are insufficiently rich to represent the behavior of real systems, such as elevators, without augmentation, and cannot identify the correct SD to execute next from any given state of the system. We propose the application of formal language theory to ensure that SDs (which can be thought of as specifying a grammar) have sufficient information to create statecharts (which implement the automata that recognize that grammar). A promising approach for SD to statechart synthesis then involves `compiling` SDs represented in an LL(1) grammar into statecharts, and permits us to bring the wealth of formal language and compiler theory to bear on this problem area.

show abstract

“…For the scenario-based synthesis including time constraints, in contrast, only very restricted proposals exist today. The approach proposed in [17] synthesizes only global solutions in form of a single automaton for non-parameterized scenarios. It employs a timed automata dialect which is not sufficient to describe the intended operational behavior, because angelic non-determinism is assumed and no concept for specifying progress conditions is supported.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%