Formal Methods in System Design

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 243–263 | Cite as

Assisting requirement formalization by means of natural language translation

  • A. Fantechi
  • S. Gnesi
  • G. Ristori
  • M. Carenini
  • M. Vanocchi
  • P. Moreschini
Article

Abstract

A prototype assistant, NL2ACTL, is presented for the formalization of behavioural requirements for the design of reactive systems. NL2ACTL is a tool for the automatic translation of Natural Language sentences, into formulae of the action-based temporal logic ACTL. The Natural Language sentences are used to express informal requirements of reactive systems. ACTL is suitable for expressing properties of reactive systems, specified by means of process algebra terms. NL2ACTL was realized using a general development environment for Natural Language Processing and it has been interfaced with a verification environment which allows behavioural and logical properties of reactive systems to be checked.

Keywords

action-based logics natural language requirement formalization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Allen, J.,Natural Language Understanding, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P.,Automatic Verification of Finite State Concurrent Systems using Temporal Logic Specifications. ACM TOPLAS, 8 (2), pp. 244–263, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cleaveland, R., Steffen, B.,A Linear Time Model Checking Algorithm for the Alternation Free Modal μ-calculus, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 575, Springer-Verlag, 1991. pp. 48–58.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeMillo, R.A., et al., Software Testing and Evaluation, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company Inc., 1987.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Nicola, R., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., Ristori, G.,An action-based framework for verifying logical and behavioural properties of concurrent systems, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 25, (7), pp. 761–778, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Nicola, R., Inverardi, P. Nesi, M.,Using Axiomatic Presentation of Behavioural Equivalences for Manipulating CCS Specifications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 407, Springer-Verlag, 1991, pp. 54–67.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Nicola, R., Vaandrager, F.W.,Action versus State based Logics for Transition Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 469, 1990, pp. 407–419.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emerson, E.A., Halpern, J.Y.,“Sometimes” and “Not Never” Revisited: on Branching Time versus Linear Time Temporal Logic, Journal of ACM, 33 (1), pp. 151–178, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fantechi, A., Ferro, G., Gnesi, S., Ristori, G.,AMC Reference Manual, IEI Technical Report, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hennessy, M., Milner, R.,Algebraic Laws for Nondeterminism and Concurrency, Journal of ACM, 32 (1), pp. 137–161, 1985.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Inverardi, P., Yankelevich, D., Priami, C.,Verification of Concurrent Systems in SML, Proceedings SML Workshop, San Francisco, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ishihara, Y., Seki, H., Kasami, T.,A Translation Method from Natural Language Specifications into Formal Specifications Using Contextual Dependencies, Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, 1992, pp. 232–239.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    JACK: Just Another Concurrency toolKit. Reference Manual, IEI Technical Report, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kozen, D.,Results on the Propositional μ-calculus, Theoretical Computer Science, 27 (2), pp. 333–354. 1983.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Madeleine, E., Vergamini, D.,AUTO: A Verification Tool for Distributed Systems Using Reduction of Finite Automata Networks, in S.T. Vuong (ed.), Formal Description Techniques, II, North-Holland, 1990, pp. 61–66.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.,The Anchored Version of the Temporal Framework, in Linear Time, Branching Time and Partial Order in Logics and Models for Concurrency, (de Bakker, J., de Roever, P. and Rozenberg, G. eds.) Lecture Notes in Computer Science 354, Springer-Verlag, 1989, pp. 201–284.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marino, M.,A framework for the Development of Natural Language Grammars, Proceedings International Workshop on Parsing Technologies, Carnegie Mellon 1989, pp. 350–360.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marino, M.,PGDE: Process Grammar Development Environment, User Manual. AITech TR#1/92-PGDEUM. Pisa, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matsumoto, Y., Ohno Y. (eds.),Japanese Perspectives in Software Engineering, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Milner, R.,Communication and Concurrency, Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miriyala, K., Harandi, M.T.,Automatic Derivation of Formal Software Specifications from Informal Descriptions, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 17 (10), pp. 1126–1142, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reilly, R., Prodanof, I., Ferrari, G., Marino, M., Saffiotti, A., MacAogain, E., Sheehy, N.,CFID: a robust manmachine interface system, Atti del Primo Congresso dell' Associazione Italiana per l'Intelligenza Artificiale, Trento, 1989.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roy, V., de Simone, R.,Auto and autograph, Proceedings of Workshop on Computer Aided Verification, AMS-DIMACS, June 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Fantechi
    • 1
  • S. Gnesi
    • 2
  • G. Ristori
    • 3
  • M. Carenini
    • 4
  • M. Vanocchi
    • 4
  • P. Moreschini
    • 4
  1. 1.Dip. di Ingegneria della InformazioneUniv. di PisaItaly
  2. 2.I.E.I.-C.N.R.PisaItaly
  3. 3.Dip. di InformaticaUniv. di PisaItaly
  4. 4.AITech s.n.c.PisaItaly

Personalised recommendations