Advertisement

Telecommunication Systems

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 61–94 | Cite as

An Evaluation of Scenario Notations and Construction Approaches for Telecommunication Systems Development

  • Daniel Amyot
  • Armin Eberlein
Article

Abstract

The elicitation, modeling and analysis of requirements have consistently been one of the main challenges during the development of complex systems. Telecommunication systems belong to this category of systems due to the worldwide distribution and the heterogeneity of today's telecommunication networks. Scenarios and use cases have become popular for capturing and analyzing requirements. However, little research has been done that compares different approaches and assesses their suitability for the telecommunications domain. This paper defines evaluation criteria and then reviews fifteen scenario notations. In addition, twenty-six approaches for the construction of design models from scenarios are briefly compared.

design model requirements scenario synthesis telecommunications use case 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    M.M. Abdalla, F. Khendek and G. Butler, New results on deriving SDL specifications from MSCs, in: SDL'99, Proc. of the 9th SDL Forum, Montréal, Canada (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1999).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Aho, S. Gallagher, N. Griffeth, C. Scheel and D. Swayne, Sculptor with chisel: Requirements engineering for communications services, in: Fifth Internat. Workshop on Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems (FIW'98), Lund, Sweden, September 1998, eds. K. Kimbler and L.G. Bouma (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1998) pp. 45-63. http://www-db.research. bell-labs.com/user/nancyg/sculptor.ps.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    R. Alur and D. Dill, A theory of timed automata, Theorerical Computer Science 126 (1994) 183-235.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    R. Alur, K. Etessami and M. Yannakakis, Inference of message sequence charts, in: 22th Internat. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE 2000), Limerick, Ireland (ACM, New York, 2000) pp. 304-313.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. Alur, G. Holzmann and D. Peled, An analyzer for message sequence charts, Software Concepts and Tools 17(2) (1996) 70-77; http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/what/ubet/ papers/aAfMSCs.ps.gz.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    D. Amyot, Specification and validation of telecommunications systems with use case maps and LOTOS, Ph.D. thesis, SITE, University of Ottawa, Canada (2001); http://www. Use-CaseMaps.org/pub/da_phd.pdf.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    D. Amyot, R. Andrade, L. Logrippo, J. Sincennes and Z. Yi, Formal methods for mobility standards, in: IEEE 1999 Emerging Technology Symposium on Wireless Communications and Systems, Richardson, TX, USA, April 1999; http://www.UseCaseMaps.org/pub/ets99.pdf.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    D. Amyot, R.J.A. Buhr, T. Gray and L. Logrippo, Use case maps for the capture and validation of distributed systems requirements, in: RE'99, 4th IEEE Internat. Symposium on Requirements Engineering, Limerick, Ireland, June 1999, pp. 44-53; http://www.UseCaseMaps. org/pub/re99.pdf.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    D. Amyot and L. Logrippo, Use case maps and lotos for the prototyping and validation of a mobile group call system, LOTOS 23(12) (2000) 1135-1157; http:// www.UseCaseMaps. org/pub/cc99.pdf.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    D. Amyot and G. Mussbacher, On the extension of UML with use case maps concepts, in: "UML" 2000, 3rd Internat. Conf. on the Unified Modeling Language, York, UK, October 2000, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1939 (Springer, New York, 2000) pp. 16-31; http:// www.UseCaseMaps.org/pub/uml2000.pdf.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    D. Amyot and G. Mussbacher, URN: Towards a new standard for the visual description of requirements, in: 3rd SDL and MSC Workshop (SAM'02), Aberystwyth, UK, June 2002; http:// www.UseCaseMaps.org/pub/sam02-URN.pdf.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Andersson and J. Bergstrand, Formalizing use cases with message sequence charts, Master thesis, Department of Communication Systems, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden, May 1995; http://www.efd.lth.se/?d87man/EXJOBB/Title_Abstract_Preface.html.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M.A. Ardis, J.A. Chaves, L.J. Jagadeesan, P. Mataga, C. Puchol, M.G. Staskauskas and J.V. Olnhausen, A framework for evaluating specification methods for reactive systems-experience report, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 22(6) (1996) 378-389.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    M. Arnold, M. Erdmann, M. Glinz, P. Haumer, R. Knoll, B. Paech, K. Pohl, J. Ryser, R. Studer and K. Weidenhaupt, Survey on the scenario use in twelve selected industrial projects, Technical Report, Aachener Informatik Berichte (AIB), No. 98-7, RWTH Aachen, Fachgruppe Informatik, Germany (1998).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    H. Ben-Abdallah and S. Leue, MESA: Support for scenario-based design of concurrent systems, Technical Report 97-12, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Waterloo, Canada (October 1997); http://tele.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/ Mesa/index.html.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    C. Ben Achour, C. Rolland, N.A.M. Maiden and C. Souveyet, Guiding use case authoring: Results of an empirical study, in: RE'99, 4th IEEE Internat. Symposium on Requirements Engineering, Limerick, Ireland, June 1999, pp. 36-43.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    K.M. Benner, M.S. Feather, W.L. Johnson and L.A. Zorman, Utilizing scenarios in the software development process, in: Information System Development Process (Elsevier Science/North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993) pp. 117-134.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    A. Boni Bangari, A use case driven validation framework and case study, M.Sc. thesis, SITE, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada (1997).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Y. Bontemps and P. Heymans, Turning high-level live sequence charts into automata, in: Scenarios and State Machines: Models, Algorithms, and Tools, ICSE 2002 Workshop, Orlando, USA (2002).Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    F. Bordeleau, A systematic and traceable progression from scenario models to communicating hierarchical finite state machines, Ph.D. thesis, School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada (1999); http://www.UseCaseMaps.org/pub/fb_phdthesis.pdf.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    F. Bordeleau and R.J.A. Buhr, The UCM-ROOM design method: From use case maps to communicating state machines, in: Conf. on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, Monterey, USA, March 1997; http://www.UseCaseMaps.org/pub/UCM-ROOM.pdf.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    R.J.A. Buhr, Use case maps as architectural entities for complex systems, Special Issue on Scenario Management of IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(12) (1998) 1131-1155; http://www.UseCaseMaps.org/pub/tse98final.pdf.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    P. Chandrasekaran, How use case modeling policies have affected the success of various projects (or how to improve use case modeling), in: Addendum to the 1997 ACM SIGPLAN Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA'97), 1997, pp. 6-9.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    X.J. Chen and H. Ural, Construction of deadlock-free designs of communication protocols from observations, Computer Journal 45(2) (2002) 162-173.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    L. Chung, B.A. Nixon, E. Yu and J. Mylopoulos, Non-functional Requirements in Software Engineering (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 2000).Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    A. Cockburn, Structuring use cases with goals, Journal of Object-Oriented Programming (JOOP/ ROAD) 10(5) (1997) 56-62; http://members.aol.com/acockburn/papers/usecases.htm.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    W. Damm and D. Harel, LCSs: Breathing life into message sequence charts, Formal Methods in System Design 19(1) (2001).Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    K. Damm and J. Klose, Verification of a radio-based signalling system using the STATEMATE verification environment, Formal Methods in System Design 19(2) (2001) 121-141.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    B. Dano, H. Briand and F. Barbier, A use case driven requirements engineering process, in: RE'97, 3rd IEEE Internat. Symposium on Requirements Engineering, Annapolis, USA (1997).Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Data networks and telecommunication software, ITU-T Study Group 17, Geneva (2002).Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    J. Desharnais, M. Frappier, R. Khédri and A. Mili, Integration of sequential scenarios, in: ESEC'97, 6th European Engineering Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1301 (Springer, New York, 1997) pp. 310-326.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    P. Du Bois, The Albert II reference manual: Language constructs and informal semantics, Research Report RR-97-002, Computer Science Department, University of Namur, Belgium (July 1997); ftp://ftp.info.fundp.ac.be/publications/RR/RR-97-002.ps.Z.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    W. Dulz, S. Gruhl, L. Lambert and M. Söllner, Early performance prediction of SDL/MSC specified systems by automated synthetic code generation, in: SDL'99, Proc. of the 9th SDL Forum, Montréal, Canada (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1999).Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    A. Eberlein, Requirements acquisition and specification for telecommunication services, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales, Swansea, UK (1997); http://www.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/ eberlein/publications/thesis.zip.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    A. Egyed, T. Systä, S. Uchitel and A. Zündorf, A summary of the ICSE 2002 workshop on scenarios and state machines: Models, algorithms, and tools, ACM Software Engineering Notes 27(5) (2002).Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    M. Elkoutbi, I. Khriss and R.K. Keller, Generating user interface prototypes from scenarios, in: RE'99, 4th IEEE Internat. Symposium on Requirements Engineering, Limerick, Ireland, June 1999, pp. 150-158; ftp://ftp.iro.umontreal.ca/pub/gelo/Publications/Papers/ isre99.pdf.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    M. Glinz, An integrated formal model of scenarios based on statecharts, in: Proc. of the 5th European Software Engineering Conf. (ESEC 1995), Sitges, Spain, 1995.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Goal-oriented Requirements Language (GRL), ITU-T, URN Focus Group, Draft Recomendation Z.151, Geneva (2002).Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    R. Guan, From requirements to scenarios through specifications: A translation procedure from use case maps to LOTOS, M.Sc. thesis, University of Ottawa, Canada (September 2002); http://lotos.site.uottawa.ca/ftp/pub/Lotos/Theses/rg_msc.pdf.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    D. Harel, From play-in scenarios to code: An achievable dream, in: Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE'2000), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1783 (Springer, New York, 2000) pp. 22-34; http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il:81/ Dienst/UI/2.0/Describe/ncstrl.weizmann_il/MCS00-06.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    D. Harel and E. Gery, Executable object modeling with statecharts, in: Proc. of the 18th Internat. Conf. on Software Engineering, Berlin, March 1996 (IEEE Press, New York, 1996) pp. 246-257.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    D. Harel and H. Kugler, Synthesizing state-based object systems from LSC specifications, Internat. Journal of Foundations of Computer Science 13(1) (2002) 5-51; also in: 5th Internat. Conf. on Implementation and Application of Automata (CIAA 2000), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer, New York, 2000).Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    D. Harel and R. Marelly, Come, Let's Play: Scenario-Based Programming Using LSCs and the Play-Engine (Springer, Berlin, 2003).Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    L. Hélouët and C. Jard, Conditions for synthesis of communicating automata from HMSCs, in: 5th Internat. Workshop on Formal Methods for Industrial Critical Systems, Berlin, April 2000; http://www.fokus.gmd.de/research/cc/tip/fmics/abstracts/helouet. html.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    P. Heymans, The ALBERT II specification animator, Technical Report, CREWS report 97-13, University of Namur (1997); http://Sunsite.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE/CREWS/.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    P. Heymans and E. Dubois, Scenario-based techniques for supporting the elaboration and the validation of formal requirements, Requirements Engineering 3 (1998) 202-218.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    High-level Petri nets-Concepts, definitions and graphical notation, Final draft of international standard 15909, Version 4.7.1, ISO/IEC (28 October 2000).Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    J. Hodges and J. Visser, Accelerating wireless intelligent network standards through formal techniques, in: IEEE 1999 Vehicular Technology Conf. (VTC'99), Houston, TX, USA,1999; http:// www.UseCaseMaps.org/pub/vtc99.pdf.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    G.J. Holzmann, D. Peled and M. Redberg, Design tools for requirements engineering, Bell Labs Technical Journal 2(1) (1997) 86-95; http://www.lucent.com/minds/ techjournal/winter_97/pdf/paper07.pdf; http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ cs/what/ubet/.Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    P. Hsia, J. Samuel, J. Gao, D. Kung, Y. Toyoshima and C. Chen, Formal approach to scenario analysis, IEEE Software (1994) 33-40.Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    R. Hurlbut, A survey of approaches for describing and formalizing use cases, Technical Report 97-03, Department of Computer Science, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA (1997); http:// www.iit.edu/?rhurlbut/xpt-tr-97-03.html.Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    R.R. Hurlbut, Managing domain architecture evolution through adaptive use case and business rule models, Ph.D. thesis, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chigago, USA (1998); http://www.iit. edu/?rhurlbut/hurl98.pdf.Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    Information processing systems, open systems interconnection, LOTOS-A formal description technique based on the temporal ordering of observational behaviour, IS 8807, ISO, Geneva (1989).Google Scholar
  54. [54]
    I. Jacobson, M. Christerson, P. Jonsson and G. Övergaard, Object-Oriented Software Engineering, A Use Case Driven Approach (Addison-Wesley/ACM Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  55. [55]
    M. Jarke and R. Kurki-Suonio, eds., Special Issue on Scenario Management, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(12) (1998).Google Scholar
  56. [56]
    F. Khendek and D. Vincent, Enriching SDL specifications with MSCs, in: 2nd Workshop of the SDL Forum Society on SDL and MSC (SAM'2000), Grenoble, France, June 2000.Google Scholar
  57. [57]
    K. Kimbler and D. Søbirk, Use case driven analysis of feature interactions, in: Feature Interactions in Telecommunications Systems, eds. L.G. Bouma and H. Velthuijsen, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, May 1994 (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1994) pp. 167-177.Google Scholar
  58. [58]
    J. Klose and H. Wittke, An automata based interpretation of live sequence chart, in: Proc. of the 7th Internat. Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS'01), 2001.Google Scholar
  59. [59]
    K. Koskimies and E. Mäkinen, Automatic synthesis of state machines from trace diagrams, Software Practice and Experience 24(7) (1994) 643-658.Google Scholar
  60. [60]
    K. Koskimies, T. Männistö, T. Systä and J. Tuomi, SCED: A tool for dynamic modelling of object systems, University of Tampere, Department of Computer Science, Report A-1996-4 (July 1996); ftp://cs.uta.fi/pub/reports/A-1996-4.ps.Z.Google Scholar
  61. [61]
    J. Koskinen, E. Mäkinen and T. Systä, Minimally adequate synthesizer tolerates inaccurate information during behavioral modeling, in: SCASE 2001, Enschede, The Netherlands, February 2001.Google Scholar
  62. [62]
    I. Krüger, R. Grosu, P. Scholz and M. Broy, From MSCs to statecharts, in: Distributed and Parallel Embedded Systems (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1999); http://www4.informatik. tumuenchen. de/papers/KGSB99.html.Google Scholar
  63. [63]
    J.C.S.P. Leite, G.D.S. Hadad, J.H. Doorn and G.N. Kaplan, A scenario construction process, Requirements Engineering 5 (2000) 38-61.Google Scholar
  64. [64]
    S. Leue, L. Mehrmann and M. Rezai, Synthesizing ROOM models from message sequence chart specifications, Technical Report 98-06, ECE Department, University of Waterloo, Canada (April 1998); short paper version in: 13th IEEE Conf. on Automated Software Engineering, Honolulu, Hawaii, October 1998; http://sven.uwaterloo.ca:80/?sleue/ publications.files/tr98-06.ps.gz.Google Scholar
  65. [65]
    J.J. Li and J.R. Horgan, Applying formal description techniques to software architectural design, Computer Communications 23(12) (2000) 1169-1178.Google Scholar
  66. [66]
    L. Liu and E. Yu, From requirements to architectural design-Using goals and scenarios, in: From Software Requirements to Architectures Workshop (STRAW 2001), Toronto, Canada, May 2001.Google Scholar
  67. [67]
    J. Magee and J. Kramer, Concurrency: State Models and Java Programs (Wiley, New York, 1999); http://www-dse.doc.ic.ac.uk/?su2/Synthesis/.Google Scholar
  68. [68]
    N.A.M. Maiden, SAVRE: Scenarios for acquiring and validating requirements, Journal of Automated Software Engineering 5 (1998) 419-446.Google Scholar
  69. [69]
    E. Mäkinen and T. Systä, MAS-An interactive synthesizer to support behavioral modeling in UML, in: 23rd Internat. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE'01), Toronto, Canada, May 2001.Google Scholar
  70. [70]
    N. Mansurov and R.L. Probert, A scenario-based approach to evolution of telecommunications software, IEEE Communications (October 2001).Google Scholar
  71. [71]
    N. Mansurov and D. Zhukov, Automatic synthesis of SDL models in use case methodology, in: SDL'99, Proc. of the 9th SDL Forum, Montréal, Canada (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1999).Google Scholar
  72. [72]
    Message Sequence Chart (MSC), ITU-T Recommendation Z. 120, Geneva (2001); http: //www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com17/languages/Z.120_1199.pdf.Google Scholar
  73. [73]
    Method for the characterization of telecommunication services supported by an ISDN and network capabilities of ISDN, ITU-T Recommendation I.130, CCITT, Geneva (1988).Google Scholar
  74. [74]
    A. Miga, Application of use case maps to system design with tool support, M.Eng. thesis, Department of Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada (1998); http://www.UseCaseMaps.org/pub/am_thesis.pdf.Google Scholar
  75. [75]
    A. Miga, D. Amyot, F. Bordeleau, C. Cameron and M. Woodside, Deriving message sequence charts from use case maps scenario specifications, in: 10th SDL Forum (SDL'01), Copenhagen, Denmark, 2001; http://www.UseCaseMaps.org/pub/sdl01-miga.pdf.Google Scholar
  76. [76]
    OSI CTMF Part 3: The tree and tabular combined notation, 2nd ed, IS 9646-3, ISO/IEC, Geneva (1997).Google Scholar
  77. [77]
    D. Petriu and M. Woodside, Software performance models from system scenarios in use case maps, in: 12th Internat. Conf. on Modelling Tools and Techniques for Computer and Communication System Performance Evaluation, London, UK (April 2002); http://www.UseCaseMaps. org/pub/tools02.pdf.Google Scholar
  78. [78]
    C. Potts, K. Takahashi and A.I. Antòn, Inquiry-based requirements analysis, IEEE Software (March 1994) 21-32.Google Scholar
  79. [79]
    R.L. Probert and J. Saleh, Synthesis of communications protocols: Survey and assessment, IEEE Transactions on Computers 40(4) (1991) 468-476.Google Scholar
  80. [80]
    B. Regnell, Requirements engineering with use cases-A basis for software development, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Communication Systems, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden, 1999; http://www.tts.lth.se/Personal/bjornr/thesis/.Google Scholar
  81. [81]
    B. Regnell, K. Kimbler and A. Wesslén, Improving the use case driven approach to requirements engineering, in: Proc. of the 2nd IEEE Internat. Symposium on Requirements Engineering, York, UK, March 1995, pp. 40-47; http://www.tts.lth.se/Personal/bjornr/Papers/ tts-94-24.ps.Google Scholar
  82. [82]
    W. Reisig and G. Rozenberg, eds., Lectures in Petri Nets, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vols. 1491, 1492 (Springer, New York, 1998).Google Scholar
  83. [83]
    C. Rolland, C. Ben Achour, C. Cauvet, J. Ralyte, A.G. Sutcliffe, N.A.M. Maiden, M. Jarke, P. Haumer, K. Pohl, E. Dubois and P. Heymas, A proposal for a scenario classification framework, Requirements Engineering Journal 3(1) (1998) 23-47.Google Scholar
  84. [84]
    C. Rolland, C. Souveyet and C. Ben Achour, Guiding goal modelling using scenarios, Special Issue on Scenario Management, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(12) (1998).Google Scholar
  85. [85]
    A. Salah, R. Dssouli and G. Lapalme, Compiling real-time scenarios into a timed automaton, in: Proc. of FORTE/PSTV'01, China, 2001.Google Scholar
  86. [86]
    K. Saleh, Synthesis of communications protocols: An annotated bibliography, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review 26(5) (1996) 40-59.Google Scholar
  87. [87]
    K. Saleh, Synthesis of protocol converters: An annotated bibliography, Computer Standards and Interfaces 19 (1998) 105-117.Google Scholar
  88. [88]
    I. Sales and R. Probert, From high-level behaviour to high-level design: Use case maps to specification and description language, in: SBRC'2000, 18? Simpósio Brasileiro de Redes de Computadores, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, May 2000.Google Scholar
  89. [89]
    S. Schönberger, R.K. Keller and I. Khriss, Algorithmic support for model transformation in objectoriented software development, Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, Object Systems Section 13(5) (2001) 351-383 (Wiley, New York, 2001).Google Scholar
  90. [90]
    SDL combined with UML, ITU-T Recommendation Z.109, Geneva (2000).Google Scholar
  91. [91]
    B. Selic, G. Gullekson and P.T. Ward, Real-Time Object-Oriented Modeling (Wiley, New York, 1994).Google Scholar
  92. [92]
    S. Somé, Dérivation de spécifications à partir de scénarios d'interaction, Ph.D. thesis, Département d'IRO, Université de Montréal, Canada (1997).Google Scholar
  93. [93]
    S. Somé, R. Dssouli and J. Vaucher, Toward an automation of requirements engineering using scenarios, Journal of Computing and Information 2(1) (1996) 1110-1132.Google Scholar
  94. [94]
    Specification and Description Language (SDL), ITU-T Recommendation Z.100, Geneva (2000); http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com17/languages/Z.100_1199. pdf.Google Scholar
  95. [95]
    T. Systä, Incremental construction of dynamic models for object-oriented software systems, Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 13(5) (2000) 18-27.Google Scholar
  96. [96]
    T. Systä, R.K. Keller and K. Koskimies, Summary report of the OOPSLA 2000 workshop on scenario-based round-trip engineering, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 26(2) (2001) 24-28; http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/?labgelo/Publications/ Papers/oopsla-2000.pdf.Google Scholar
  97. [97]
    The unified functional methodology for the characterization of services and network capabilities including alternative object-oriented techniques, ITU-T Recommendation Q.65, Geneva (2000).Google Scholar
  98. [98]
    K.J. Turner, Formalising the chisel feature notation, in: 6th Internat. Workshop on Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software Systems (FIW'00), Glasgow, Scotland, UK, May 2000 (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2000) pp. 241-256; ftp://ftp.cs.stir.ac. uk/pub/staff/kjt/research/pubs/form-chis.pdf.Google Scholar
  99. [99]
    S. Uchitel and J. Kramer, A workbench for synthesizing behavior models from scenarios, in: 23rd IEEE Internat. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE'01), Toronto, Canada, May 2001.Google Scholar
  100. [100]
    S. Uchitel, J. Kramer and J. Magee, Implied scenario detection in the presence of behaviour constraints, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 65(7) (2002).Google Scholar
  101. [101]
    UCM: Use Case Map Notation, ITU-T, URN Focus Group, Draft Recomendation Z.152, Geneva (2002).Google Scholar
  102. [102]
    UML resource page, OMG (2002); http://www.omg.org/uml/.Google Scholar
  103. [103]
    Unified modeling language specification, Version 1.5, OMG (March 2003); http://www.omg. org.Google Scholar
  104. [104]
    Use case maps Web page, UCM User Group (1999); http://www.UseCaseMaps.org.Google Scholar
  105. [105]
    User Requirements Notation (URN)-Language requirements and framework, ITU-T: Recommendation Z.150, Geneva, Switzerland (2003); http://www.UseCaseMaps.org/urn/.Google Scholar
  106. [106]
    A. van Lamsweerde and L. Willemet, Inferring declarative requirements specifications from operational scenarios, Special Issue on Scenario Management of IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(12) (1998) 1089-1114.Google Scholar
  107. [107]
    K. Weidenhaupt, K. Pohl, M. Jarke and P. Haumer, Scenarios in system development: Current practice, IEEE Software (March/April 1998) 34-45.Google Scholar
  108. [108]
    J. Whittle and J. Schumann, Generating statechart designs from scenarios, in: 22th Internat. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE 2000), Limerick, Ireland (ACM, New York, 2000) pp. 314-323.Google Scholar
  109. [109]
    J. Whittle and J. Schumann, statechart synthesis from scenarios: An air traffic control case study, in: Scenarios and State Machines: Models, Algorithms, and Tools, ICSE 2002 Workshop, Orlando, USA, 2002.Google Scholar
  110. [110]
    C.M. Woodside, D. Menascé and H. Gomaa, eds., in: Proc. of the 2nd Internat. Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP'2000), Ottawa, Canada, September 2000.Google Scholar
  111. [111]
    G.M. Yee and C.M. Woodside, A transformational approach to process partitioning using timed Petri nets, in: Proc. of Internat. Computer Symposium 90 (ICS90), Taiwan, December 1990, pp. 395-401.Google Scholar
  112. [112]
    P. Zave and M. Jackson, Four dark corners of requirements engineering, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 6(1) (1997) 1-30; http://www.research. att.com/?pamela/4dc.ps.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Amyot
    • 1
  • Armin Eberlein
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Information Technology and EngineeringUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Electrical & Computer EngineeringUniversity of CalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations