Automatic Model Driven Animation of SCR Specifications

  • Angelo Gargantini
  • Elvinia Riccobene
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2621)

Abstract

This paper introduces automatic model driven animation, a novel approach to validate requirements specifications. This approach, here applied to SCR specifications, is based on graphical animation. Automatic model driven animation consists in automatically deriving scenarios from requirements specifications; these scenarios are used to animate critical system behaviors through a graphical interface. Animation is useful at the very early stages of systems development to better understand models and requirements, to gain confidence that specifications capture informal requirements, and to detect faults.We introduce a technique, exploiting model checkers, to automatically generate animation sequences starting from requirements specifications, and we present a prototype tool for the generation and animation of scenarios.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Bharadwaj and C. Heitmeyer. Model checking complete requirements specifications using abstraction. Automated Software Engineering Journal, 6(1), Jan. 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Bicarregui, J. Dick, B. Matthews, and E. Woods. Making the most of formal specification through animation, testing and proof. Science of Computer Programming, 29(1–2):53–78, July 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Börger, E. Riccobene, and J. Schmid. Capturing requirements by abstract state machines: The light control case study. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 6(7):597–620, July 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Cavarra and E. Riccobene. Simulating UML statecharts. In R. Moreno-Diaz and A. Quesada-Arencibia, editors, Formal Methods and Tools for Computer Science-Eurocast 2001, pages 224–227, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P.-J. Courtois and D. L. Parnas. Documentation for safety critical software. In Proc. 15th Int’l Conf. on Softw. Eng. (ICSE’ 93), pages 315–323, Baltimore, MD, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Gargantini and C. Heitmeyer. Using model checking to generate tests from requirements specifications. In O. Nierstrasz and M. Lemoine, editors, Proceedings of the 7th European Engineering Conference and the 7th ACMSIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, volume 1687 of LNCS, Sept. 6–10 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Gargantini, L. Liberati, A. Morzenti, and C. Zacchetti. Specifying, validating and testing a traffic management system in the TRIO environment. In Compass’96: Eleventh Annual Conference on Computer Assurance, page 65, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 1996. National Institute of Standards and Technology.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Gargantini and A. Morzenti. Automated deductive requirements analysis of critical systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 10(3):255–307, July 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Gargantini and E. Riccobene. ASM-based testing: Coverage criteria and automatic test sequence generation. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7(11):1050–1067, Nov. 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Hazel, P. Strooper, and O. Traynor. Requirements engineering and verification using specification animation. In Thirteenth International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pages 302–305. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Heitmeyer, J. Kirby, B. Labaw, and R. Bharadwaj. SCR: A toolset for specifying and analyzing software requirements. In Proc. 10th International Computer Aided Verification Conference, pages 526–531, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Heitmeyer, J. Kirby, Jr., B. Labaw, M. Archer, and R. Bharadwaj. Using abstraction and model checking to detect safety violations in requirements specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(11):927–948, Nov. 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. L. Heitmeyer. Software cost reduction. In J. J. Marciniak, editor, Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, Two Volumes. JohnWiley & Sons, January 2002.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. L. Heitmeyer, R. D. Jeffords, and B. G. Labaw. Automated consistency checking of requirements specifications. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 5(3):231–261, April–June 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. J. Holzmann. The model checker SPIN. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 23(5):279–295, May 1997.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. Kazmierczak, M. Winikoff, and P. Dart. Verifying model oriented specifications through animation. In Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pages 254–261. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. A. Kemmerer. Testing formal specifications to detect design errors. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 11(1):32–43, Jan. 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Magee, J. Kramer, B. Nuseibeh, D. Bush, and J. Sonander. Hybrid model visualization in requirements and design:Apreliminary investigation. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (IWSSD-10), Nov. 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Magee, N. Pryce, D. Giannakopoulou, and J. Kramer. Graphical animation of behavior models. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 499–508. ACM Press, June 2000.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    K. L. McMillan. The SMV system. Technical report, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1992. DRAFT.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    T. Miller and P. Strooper. Animation can showonly the presence of errors, never their absence. In Proc. of the 2001 Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC 2001), pages 76–85. IEEE Computer Society, 2001.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    I. Parissis. A formal approach to testing lustre specifications. In 1st International IEEE Conference on Formal Engineering Methods, Hiroshima, pages 91–100, 1997.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Schimd. Executing ASM specifications with AsmGofer. http://www.tydo.de/AsmGofer.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angelo Gargantini
    • 1
  • Elvinia Riccobene
    • 2
  1. 1.C.E.A.- Università di CataniaGermany
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Matematica e InformaticaUniversità di CataniaGermany

Personalised recommendations