Generating EAST-ADL Event Chains from Scenario-Based Requirements Specifications

  • Thorsten Koch
  • Jörg Holtmann
  • Julien DeAntoni
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8627)

Abstract

Real-time software-intensive embedded systems complexity, as in the automotive domain, requires rigorous Requirements Engineering (RE) approaches. Scenario-based RE formalisms like Modal Sequence Diagrams (MSDs) enable an intuitive specification and the simulative validation of functional requirements. However, the dependencies between events occurring in different MSD scenarios are implicit so that it is difficult to find causes of requirements defects, if any. The automotive architecture description language east-adl addresses this problem by relying on event chains, which make dependencies between events explicit. However, east-adl event chains have a low abstraction level, and their relationship to functional requirements has seldom been investigated. Based on the east-adl functional architecture, we propose to use its central notion of event to conciliate both approaches. We conceived an automatic transformation from the high abstraction level requirements specified in MSDs to the low abstraction level event chains.

Keywords

Requirements engineering embedded systems automotive scenario-based specification EAST-ADL event chains 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Brenner, C., Greenyer, J., Holtmann, J., Liebel, G., Stieglbauer, G., Tichy, M.: ScenarioTools real-time play-out for test sequence validation in an automotive case study. In: Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brenner, C., Greenyer, J., Panzica La Manna, V.: The ScenarioTools play-out of modal sequence diagram specifications with environment assumptions. In: Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Damm, W., Harel, D.: LSCs: Breathing life into message sequence charts. Formal Methods in System Design 19, 45–80 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeAntoni, J., Mallet, F.: TimeSquare: Treat your models with logical time. In: Furia, C.A., Nanz, S. (eds.) TOOLS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7304, pp. 34–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    EAST-ADL Association. EAST-ADL Domain Model Specification: Version V2.1.12 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goknil, A., DeAntoni, J., Peraldi-Frati, M.-A., Mallet, F.: Tool support for the analysis of TADL2 timing constraints using TimeSquare. In: ICECCS, pp. 145–154. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goknil, A., Suryadevara, J., Peraldi-Frati, M.-A., Mallet, F.: Analysis support for TADL2 timing constraints on EAST-ADL models. In: Drira, K. (ed.) ECSA 2013. LNCS, vol. 7957, pp. 89–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harel, D., Maoz, S.: Assert and negate revisited: Modal semantics for UML sequence diagrams. Software and Systems Modeling 7, 237–252 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harel, D., Marelly, R.: Come, let’s play: Scenario-based programming using LSCs and the play-engine. Springer (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hassine, J., Rilling, J., Dssouli, R.: An evaluation of timed scenario notations. Journal of Systems and Software 83(2), 326–350 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holtmann, J., Meyer, M.: Play-out for hierarchical component architectures. In: 11th Workshop Automotive Software Engineering (ASE 2013). LNI, vol. P-220, pp. 2458–2472 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klein, F., Giese, H.: Joint structural and temporal property specification using timed story scenario diagrams. In: Dwyer, M.B., Lopes, A. (eds.) FASE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4422, pp. 185–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koch, T.: Combining scenario-based and architecture-based timing requirements. Master’s thesis, University of Paderborn, Paderborn (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Object Management Group. Meta object facility (MOF) 2.0 query/view/transformation specification: Version 1.1, OMG document number: formal/2011-01-01 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pohl, K.: Requirements Engineering: Fundamentals, Principles, and Techniques. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Priesterjahn, C., Heinzemann, C., Schäfer, W.: From timed automata to timed failure propagation graphs. In: 4th IEEE Workshop on Self-Organizing Real-time Systems (SORT 2013). IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen, X., Liu, J., Mallet, F., Jin, Z.: Modeling timing requirements in problem frames using CCSL. In: APSEC, pp. 381–388 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thorsten Koch
    • 1
  • Jörg Holtmann
    • 1
  • Julien DeAntoni
    • 2
  1. 1.Project Group Mechatronic Systems DesignFraunhofer IPTPaderbornGermany
  2. 2.Univ. Nice Sophia Antipolis, I3S, UMR 7271 CNRSSophia AntipolisFrance

Personalised recommendations