Process interface modeling and consistency checking

Kung, Chenho

doi:10.1016/0164-1212(91)90055-b

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Kung provides an extension to SA that while deficient, leads us to conclude that the extensions for real-time system specifications are superfluous [36]. In Chapter 7…”

Section: History Of Structured Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Section 7.2, we discuss the traditional methods and extensions for the specifi cation of a DFD bubble. One of these extensions, Kung's information flow expressions [35,36], provides the foundation for our development of a modified state transition diagram specification of DFD bubble behavior. Kung's information flow expressions provide a specification of fiow value consumption (read or receive) and fiow value production (write or send).…”

Section: Merging Objected-oriented Specifications and Samentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kung's and our work lead us to question whether control transformations are even necessary [36,15]. Control transformations impart an implementation strategy for controlling the execution of the functional data transformations.…”

Section: What Is a Process Bubble?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To represent the enabling of execution, Kung introduces information flow expres sions, and a graphic representation of information flow expressions, to allow for more precise specification of which combinations of in-flow values are required by a DFD bubble, and which out-flow values will be produced [36].^ Kung's information flow expressions are an enhanced nestable version of De Marco's * and ©operators. We view Kung's information flow expressions as boolean expressions defined in terms of the in-flow and out-flow labels.…”

Section: What Is a Process Bubble?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this Section we identify and correct two problems with Kung's work on in formation flow expressions. The first problem involves a synchronization error in the specification of the traditional producer-consumer problem, which Kung uses as his primary example [36]. This synchronization problem is inherent in the producerconsumer system.…”

Section: Kung's Process Specificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Formalized structured analysis specifications

Coleman

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfihn master. UMI fUms the text directly &om the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afifect reproduction.In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

show abstract

“…Kung provides an extension to SA that while deficient, leads us to conclude that the extensions for real-time system specifications are superfluous [36]. In Chapter 7…”

Section: History Of Structured Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Merging Objected-oriented Specifications and Samentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Is a Process Bubble?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Is a Process Bubble?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Kung's Process Specificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Formalized structured analysis specifications

Coleman

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Using explanations to improve the validation of executable models

Gulla

Willumsen

1993

Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executable modeling languages are now found in several commercial and experimental CASE environments. The ability to execute conceptual models has been considered vital for the validation of their dynamic properties. However, during model execution only observable aspects can be validated, and it can be very hard to check whether the internal computations are modeled correctly. Traces provide some of the informations necessary to understand the model's behavior in depth, but they are often just as difficult to read as the conceptual models themselves.In this paper we show how explanation generation technology can be combined with the execution of conceptual models. A component that can explain the internal reasoning of the model as well as its user interaction is presented, and it is also indicated how the component is being implemented in the PPP CASE environment. Using this integrated validation approach, we are able to expose both the external and internal reasoning of executable conceptual models.

show abstract

Validating conceptual models by transformational prototyping

Lindland

Krogstie

1993

Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Validation of user requirements shouldstart as early as possible in the development process. A conceptual model is a suitable medium for an early representation of functional requirements. Despite the useroriented nature of many conceptual models, requirements error are difficult to detect as the size and complexity of the model increases. Thus, the consequences of the specified requirements are difficult to judge only from inspecting the models. To improve the model comprehensibility, a conceptual model with executable properties can be transformed to an executable prototype that can be evaluated to detect potential misconceptions expressed in the model. One major validation approach to improve the comprehensibility of complex models is based on and exploits the executability of conceptual modeling languages. A conceptual model can be interpreted as or transformed to an executable prototype. An executable prototype is particularly useful for validating the dynamic properties of the conceptual model. In this paper the executable properties of the PPP language are exploited and a PPP model is transformed into an executable prototype in TEQUEL and C. The transformation strategy and execution mechanisms of the approach are presented, and its potential for validating model behavior is discussed.

show abstract

Process interface modeling and consistency checking

Cited by 16 publications

References 6 publications

Formalized structured analysis specifications

Formalized structured analysis specifications

Using explanations to improve the validation of executable models

Validating conceptual models by transformational prototyping

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About