Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Arcade: early dynamic property evaluation of requirements using partitioned software architecture models

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A fundamental goal of software engineering research is to develop evaluation techniques that enable analysis early in the software development process, when correcting errors is less costly. The Systems Engineering Process Activities (SEPA) Arcade tool employs a number of techniques to evaluate dynamic properties of requirements including correctness, performance, and reliability. To mitigate a number of practical issues associated with dynamic property evaluation, Arcade leverages the SEPA 3D Architecture, a formal requirements representation that partitions requirements types amongst a set of interrelated architecture models. This paper presents a case study illustrating how Arcade uses the SEPA 3D Architecture to help manage complexity associated with dynamic property evaluation, to reduce the level of evaluation technique expertise required to perform dynamic property evaluations, and to support an iterative, incremental approach that allows early evaluation using partial requirements models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
Fig. 9.
Fig. 10.
Fig. 11.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bass L, Clements P, Kazman R (1998) Software architecture in practice. SEI series in software engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

  2. Perry DE, Wolf AL (1992) Foundations for the study of software architecture. Softw Eng Notes 17(4):40–52

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hsia P, Davis A, Kung D (1993) Status report: requirements engineering. IEEE Softw 10(6):75–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wieringa R, Dubois E (1998) Integrating semi-formal and formal software specification techniques. Inform Syst 23(3/4):159–178

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barber KS et al (1999) Requirements evolution and reuse using the systems engineering process activities (SEPA). Aust J Inform Syst (Special Issue on Requirements Engineering) 7(1):75–97

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barber KS et al (2001) Reliability estimation techniques for domain reference architectures. In: 14th international conference on software and systems engineering and their applications (ICSSEA 2001), Paris

  7. Barber KS, Graser TJ, Holt J. Evaluating dynamic correctness properties of domain reference architectures using a combination of simulation and model checking. In: 13th international conference in software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE 2001), Buenos Aires

  8. Barber KS, Holt J, Baker G (2002) Performance evaluation of domain reference architectures. In: 14th international conference in software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE 2002), Ischia, Italy

  9. Sommerville I (1992) Software engineering (4th edn). Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, UK

  10. Tsai J, Xu K (1999) An empirical evaluation of deadlock detection in software architecture specifications. Ann Softw Eng 7:95–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hofmann HF, Lehner F (2001) Requirements engineering as a success factor in software projects. IEEE Softw 18(4):58–66

    Google Scholar 

  12. Barber KS, Graser TJ, Holt J (2001) Evolution of requirements and architectures: an empirical-based analysis. In: 1st international workshop on model-based requirements engineering (MBRE'01), San Diego, CA

  13. Barber KS, Graser TJ, Holt J. A multi-level software architecture metamodel to support the capture and evaluation of stakeholder concerns. In: 5th world multi-conference on systematics, cybernatics and informatics (SCI 2001), Orlando, FL

  14. Holzman GJ (1997) The model checker SPIN. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 23(5):279–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Alpern B, Schneider FB (1987) Recognizing safety and liveness. Distrib Comput 2(3):117–126

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kindler E (1994) Safety and liveness properties: a survey. Bull Eur Assoc Theor Comput Sci 53:268–272

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lamport L, Lynch N (1990) Distributed computing: models and methods. In: Leeuwen Jv (ed) Handbook of theoretical computer science. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1157–1199

  18. Barber KS, Graser TJ, Holt J (2002) Providing early feedback in the development cycle through automated application of model checking to software architectures. In: 16th international conference on automated software engineering, San Diego, CA

  19. ITU-TS (1996) ITU-TS Recommendation Z.120: Message Sequence Charts (MSC). ITU, Geneva

  20. Schneider F et al (1998) Validating requirements for fault tolerant systems using model checking. In: 3rd international conference on requirements engineering, Colorado Springs, CO

  21. Barber KS, Holt J (2001) Software architecture correctness. IEEE Softw 18(8):64–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fishwick PA (1995) Simulation model design and execution: building digital worlds. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  23. Yacoub S, Cukic B, Ammar H (1999) Scenario-based reliability analysis of component-based software. In: 10th international symposium on software reliability engineering, Boca Raton, FL

  24. Heitmeyer C, Kirby J, Labaw B (1998) Applying the SCR requirements method to a weapons control panel: an experience report. In: 2nd workshop on formal methods in software practice (FMSP'98), Clearwater Beach, FL

  25. Cheung S, Giannakopoulou D, Kramer J (1997) Verification of liveness properties using compositional reachability analysis. In: ESEC/FSE '97, Zurich

  26. Cheung SC, Kramer J Checking subsystem safety properties in compositional reachability analysis. In: 18th international conference on software engineering, Berlin

  27. Bose P (1999) Scenario-driven analysis of component-based software architecture models. In: IFIP WICSA, San Antonio, TX

  28. Aquilana F, Balsamo S, Inverardi P (2001) Performance analysis at the software architectural design level. Perform Evaluation 45(2–3):147–178

    Google Scholar 

  29. Petriu D, Shousha C, Jalnapurkar A (2000) Architecture-based performance analysis applied to a telecommunication system. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 26(11):1049–1065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Spitznagel B, Garlan D (1998) Architecture-based performance analysis. In: 10th international conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering, San Francisco, CA

  31. Li JJ (1998) Performance prediction based on semi-formal software architectural description. In: International conference on performance in computing and communications, Phoenix/Tempe, AZ

  32. Lung C-H, Jalnapurkar A, El-Rayess A (1998) Performance-oriented software architecture engineering: an experience report. In: Workshop on software performance (WOSP98), Santa Fe, NM

  33. Williams LG, Smith CU (1998) Performance evaluation of software architectures. In: Workshop on software and performance, Santa Fe, NM

  34. Bernardo M, Ciancarini P, Donatiello L (2000) AEMPA: a process algebraic description language for the performance analysis of software architectures. In: 2nd international workshop on software and performance (WOSP 2000), Ottawa

  35. Andolfi F et al (2000) Deriving performance models of software architecture from message sequence charts. In: 2nd international workshop on software performance, Ottawa

  36. Li JJ, Micallef J (1997) Automatic simulation to predict software architecture reliability. In: 8th international symposium on software reliability engineering, Albuquerque, NM

  37. Gokhale SS et al (1998) An analytical approach to architecture-based software reliability prediction. In: IEEE international computer performance and dependability symposium, Durham, NC

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by the Schlumberger Foundation Grant and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Advanced Technology Program (ATP #003658-0188-1999).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory for Intelligent Processes and Systems, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 78712-1084, USA

    K. Suzanne Barber & Tom Graser

  2. Motorola, 7700 West Parmer Lane, Austin, Texas, 78729, USA

    Jim Holt & Geoff Baker

Authors
  1. K. Suzanne Barber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tom Graser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jim Holt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Geoff Baker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Suzanne Barber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barber, K.S., Graser, T., Holt, J. et al. Arcade: early dynamic property evaluation of requirements using partitioned software architecture models. Requirements Eng 8, 222–235 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-002-0159-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-002-0159-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation