O-O Requirements Analysis: an Agent Perspective

  • Eric Dubois
  • Philippe Du Bois
  • Michaël Petit
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 707)

Abstract

In this paper, we present a formal object-oriented specification language designed for capturing requirements expressed on composite real-time systems. The specification describes the system as a society of ‘agents’, each of them being characterised (i) by its responsibility with respect to actions happening in the system and (ii) by its time-varying perception of the behaviour of the other agents. On top of the language, we also suggest some methodological guidance by considering a general strategy based on a progressive assignement of responsibilities to agents.

Keywords

O-O requirements analysis agents actions formal language first-older temporal and deontic logic elaboration of the requirements document 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AG91]
    A.J. Alencar and J.A. Goguen. Ooze: An object oriented Z environment. In P. America, editor, Proc. of the 5th european conference on object-oriented programming — ECOOP’91, pages 180–199. LNCS 512, Springer-Verlag, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [BJ78]
    D. Bjørner and C.B. Jones. The Vienna Development Method. The metalanguage, volume 61 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1978.Google Scholar
  3. [Bjø92]
    D. Bjørner. Trusted computing systems: The procos experience. In Proc. of the 14th international conference on software engineering, pages 15–34, Melbourne (Australia), May 11–15, 1992. IEEE, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  4. [BMR92]
    A. Borgida, J. Mylopoulos, and R. Reiter.... and nothing else changes: The frame problem in procedure specifications. Technical Report DCSTR-281, Dept. of Computer Science, Rutgers University, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. [BP83]
    F. Bodart and Y. Pigneur. Conception assistée des applications informatiques. Premiere partie: Etude d’opportunité et analyse conceptuelle. Masson, Paris, 1983.Google Scholar
  6. [Bru91]
    J. Brunet. Modelling the world with semantic objects. In Proc. of the working conference on the object-oriented approach in information systems, Quebec, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. [CY91]
    P. Coad and E Yourdon. Object-Oriented Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [DDR92]
    Eric Dubois, Philippe Du Bois, and André Rifaut. Elaborating, structuring and expressing formal requirements of composite systems. In P. Loucopoulos, editor, Proc. of the 4th conference on advanced information systems engineering — CaiSE’92, pages 327–347, Manchester (UK), May12–15, 1992. LNCS 593, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. [DDRW91]
    Eric Dubois, Philippe Du Bois, André Rifaut, and Pierre Wodon. Glider user manual. Intermediate Deliverable SpecFunc-028-R, ESPRIT Project Icarus 2537, June 1991.Google Scholar
  10. [DFHF91]
    E. Doerry, S. Fickas, R. Helm, and M. Feather. A model for composite system design. In Proc. of the 6th international workshop on software specification and design, Milano, October 1991.Google Scholar
  11. [DFvL91]
    A. Dardenne, S. Fickas, and A. van Lamsweerde. Goal-directed concept acquisition in requirements elicitation. In Proc. of the 6th international workshop on software specification and design, Milano, October 1991.Google Scholar
  12. [DHR91]
    Eric Dubois, Jacques Hagelstein, and André Rifaut. A formal language for the requirements engineering of computer systems. In André Thayse, editor, From natural language processing to logic for expert systems, chapter 6. Wiley, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. [DKRS91]
    Roger Duke, Paul King, Gordon Rose, and Graeme Smith. The object-z specification language — version 1. Technical report 91-1, SVRC, Dept. of Computer Science, The University of Queensland, Queensland (Australia), May 1991.Google Scholar
  14. [Du 92]
    Philippe Du Bois. Using glider for the formal definition of a requirements language for specifying composite systems. Technical report, Computer Science Department, University of Namur, Namur (Belgium), May 1992.Google Scholar
  15. [Dub89]
    Eric Dubois. A logic of action for supporting goal-oriented elaborations of requirements. In Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on software specification and design, pages 160–168, Pittsburgh PA, May 19–20, 1989. IEEE, CS Press.Google Scholar
  16. [Dub91]
    Eric Dubois. Use of deontic logic in the requirements engineering of composite systems. In J.J. Meyer and R.J. Wieringa, editors, Proc. of the first international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Amsterdam (The Netherlands), December 11–13, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. [DvL87]
    Eric Dubois and Axel van Lamsweerde. Making specification processes explicit. In Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on software specification and design, pages 161–168, Monterey CA, April 3–4, 1987. IEEE, CS Press.Google Scholar
  18. [Fea87]
    Martin S. Feather. Language support for the specification and development of composite systems. ACM Transactions on programming languages and systems, 9(2):198–234, April 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [Fea89]
    Martin S. Feather. Constructing specifications by combining parallel elaborations. IEEE Transactions on software engineering, SE-15(2), February 1989.Google Scholar
  20. [FF89]
    Anthony Finkelstein and Hugo Fuks. Multi-party specification. In Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on software specification and design, pages 185–195, Pittsburgh PA, May 19–20, 1989. IEEE, CS Press.Google Scholar
  21. [FH91]
    Stephen Fickas and Rob Helm. Acting responsibly: Reasoning about agents in a multi-agent system. Technical Report CIS-TR-91-02, Dept. of Computer and Information Science, University of Oregon, Eugene OR, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. [FM90]
    Jose Fiadeiro and Tom Maibaum. Describing, structuring and implementing objects. In Foundations of Object-Oriented Languages-REX School/Workshop, pages 275–310, Noordwijkerhout (The Netherlands), May 28–June 1, 1990. LNCS 489, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. [FP87]
    Anthony Finkelstein and Colin Potts. Building formal specifications using “structured common sense”. In Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on software specification and design, pages 108–113, Monterey CA, April 3–4, 1987. IEEE, CS Press.Google Scholar
  24. [FS86]
    Jose Fiadeiro and Amilcar Sernadas. Linear tense propositional logic. Information Systems, 11(1):61–85, 1986.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [GB91]
    D. Gabbay and P. McBrien. Temporal logic and historical databases. In Proc. of the 17th international conference on very large databases, Barcelona, September 1991.Google Scholar
  26. [GBM86]
    Sol J. Greenspan, Alexander Borgida, and John Mylopoulos. A requirements modeling language and its logic. In M.L. Bodie and J. Mylopoulos, editors, On knowledge base managment systems, Topics in information systems, pages 471–502. Springer-Verlag, 1986.Google Scholar
  27. [GHW85]
    John V. Guttag, James J. Horning, and Jeannette M. Wing. Larch in five easy pieces. Technical Report 5, Digital systems research center, Palo Alto CA, July 1985.Google Scholar
  28. [HC68]
    G.E. Hughes and M.J. Cresswell. An introduction to modal logic. Methuen and Co., London, 1968.MATHGoogle Scholar
  29. [Hew91]
    C. Hewitt. DAI betwist and between: open systems science and/or intelligent agents. In J. Mylopoulos and R. Balzer, editors, Proc. of the international workshop on the development of intelligent information systems, Niagara-on-the-Lake (Canada), April 21–23, 1991.Google Scholar
  30. [HR92]
    Jacques Hagelstein and Dominique Roelants. Reconciling operational and declarative specifications. In P. Loucopoulos, editor, Proc. of the 4th conference on advanced information systems engineering — CAiSE’92, pages 221–238, Manchester (UK), May12–15, 1992. LNCS 593, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. [JF90]
    W. Lewis Johnson and Martin Feather. Building an evolution transformation library. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on software engineering, Nice (France), March 1990. IEEE.Google Scholar
  32. [JSS91]
    R. Jungclaus, G. Saake, and C. Sernadas. Formal specification of object systems. In S. Abramsky and T. Maibaum, editors, Proc. of TAPSOFT’91 Vol.2, pages 60–82, Brighton (UK), 1991. LNCS 494, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. [KVdR89]
    R. Koymans, J. Vytopil, and W. de Roever. Specifying message passing and time-critical systems with temporal logic. Doctoral dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven (The Netherlands), 1989.MATHGoogle Scholar
  34. [MBJK90]
    J. Mylopoulos, A. Borgida, M. Jarke, and M. Koubarakis. Telos: A language for representing knowledge about information systems. ACM Transansaction on Information Systems, 8(4):325–362, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [MCN92]
    J. Mylopoulos, L. Chung, and B. Nixon. Representing and using nonfunctional requirements: a process-oriented approach. IEEE Transactions on software engineering, SE-18, June 1992.Google Scholar
  36. [OSC89]
    F. Orejas, V. Sacristan, and S. Clerici. Development of algebraic specifications with constraints. In Proc. of the workshop in categorical methods in computer science. LNCS 393, Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  37. [RFM91]
    Mark D. Ryan, Jose Fiadeiro, and Tom Maibaum. Sharing actions and attributes in modal action logic. In T. Ito and A. Meyer, editors, Theoretical Aspects of Computer Software. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  38. [Ros77]
    Douglas T. Ross. Structured analysis (sa): a language for communicating ideas. IEEE Transactions on software engineering, SE-3(l):16–34, January 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [Ser80]
    Amilcar Sernadas. Temporal aspects of logic procedure definition. Information Systems, 5:167–187, 1980.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [Sho90]
    Y. Shoham. Agent-oriented programming. Technical report STAN-CS-90-1335, Robotics Laboratory, Computer Science Dept, Stanford University, Stanford CA, 1990.Google Scholar
  41. [SM88]
    S. Shlaer and S.J. Mellor. Object-oriented systems analysis: modelling the world in data. Yourdon Press: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1988.Google Scholar
  42. [SSE89]
    A. Sernadas, C. Sernadas, and H.-D. Ehrich. Abstract object types: a temporal perspective. In B. Banieqbal, H. Barringer, and A. Pnueli, editors, Proc. of the colloquium on temporal logic and specification, pages 324–350. LNCS 398, Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  43. [TH77]
    D. Teichroew and E. Hershey. A computer-aided technique for structured documentation and analysis of information processing systems. IEEE Transactions on software engineering, SE-3:41–48, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [TLW91]
    C. Theodoulidis, P. Loucopoulos, and B. Wangler. A conceptual modelling formalism for temporal database applications. Information Systems, 16(4):401–416, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. [TRC83]
    H. Tardieu, A. Rochfeld, and R. Colletti. La méthode MERISE: principes et outils. Les Editions d’Organisation, Paris (France), 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Dubois
    • 1
  • Philippe Du Bois
    • 1
  • Michaël Petit
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut d’lnfoimatiqueFacultés Universitaires de NamurNamurBelgium

Personalised recommendations