Advertisement

Formalisation of SysML/KAOS Goal Assignments with B System Component Decompositions

  • Steve Jeffrey Tueno Fotso
  • Marc Frappier
  • Régine Laleau
  • Amel Mammar
  • Michael Leuschel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11023)

Abstract

The use of formal methods for verification and validation of critical and complex systems is important, but can be extremely tedious without modularisation mechanisms. SysML/KAOS is a requirements engineering method. It includes a goal modeling language to model requirements from stakeholder’s needs. It also contains a domain modeling language for the representation of system application domain using ontologies. Translation rules have been defined to automatically map SysML/KAOS models into B System specifications. Moreover, since the systems we are interested in naturally break down into subsystems (enabling the distribution of work between several agents: hardware, software and human), SysML/KAOS goal models allow the capture of assignments of requirements to agents responsible of their achievement. Each agent is associated with a subsystem. The contribution of this paper is an approach to ensure that a requirement assigned to a subsystem is well achieved by the subsystem. A particular emphasis is placed on ensuring that system invariants persist in subsystems specifications.

Keywords

Requirements engineering Formal models Modularisation Goal models Domain models SysML/KAOS B System Event-B 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work is carried out within the framework of the FORMOSE project [5] funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR). It is also partly supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.R.: The B-Book: Assigning Programs to Meanings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrial, J.: Modeling in Event-B - System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrial, J.R., Hallerstede, S.: Refinement, decomposition, and instantiation of discrete models: application to Event-B. Fundamenta Informaticae 77(1–2), 1–28 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. J. ACM (JACM) 49(5), 672–713 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ANR-14-CE28-0009: Formose ANR project (2017). http://formose.lacl.fr/
  6. 6.
    Bauer, J.C.: Specification for a software program for a boiler water content monitor and control system. Institute of Risk Research, University of Waterloo (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Butler, M.: Synchronisation-based decomposition for Event-B. RODIN Deliverable D19 Intermediate report on methodology, pp. 47–57 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Butler, M.: An approach to the design of distributed systems with B AMN. In: Bowen, J.P., Hinchey, M.G., Till, D. (eds.) ZUM 1997. LNCS, vol. 1212, pp. 221–241. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0027291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Butler, M., Jones, C.B., Romanovsky, A., Troubitsyna, E. (eds.): Rigorous Development of Complex Fault-Tolerant Systems. LNCS, vol. 4157. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11916246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Claassen, A.F., Lathon, R.D., Rochowiak, D.M., Interrante, L.D.: Active rescheduling for goal maintenance in dynamic manufacturing-systems. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ClearSy: Atelier B: B System (2014). http://clearsy.com/
  12. 12.
    Davis, W.J.: Evaluating performance of distributed intelligent control systems. NIST Special Publication SP, pp. 225–232 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tueno Fotso, S.J., Frappier, M., Laleau, R., Mammar, A.: Modeling the hybrid ERTMS/ETCS level 3 standard using a formal requirements engineering approach. In: Butler, M., Raschke, A., Hoang, T.S., Reichl, K. (eds.) ABZ 2018. LNCS, vol. 10817, pp. 262–276. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91271-4_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tueno Fotso, S.J., Mammar, A., Laleau, R., Frappier, M.: Event-B expression and verification of translation rules between SysML/KAOS domain models and B system specifications. In: Butler, M., Raschke, A., Hoang, T.S., Reichl, K. (eds.) ABZ 2018. LNCS, vol. 10817, pp. 55–70. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91271-4_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goranko, V.: Coalition games and alternating temporal logics. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, pp. 259–272. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hause, M., et al.: The SysML modelling language. In: Fifteenth European Systems Engineering Conference, vol. 9. Citeseer (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M.: Multi-agent systems. Found. Artif. Intell. 3, 887–928 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iliasov, A., et al.: Supporting reuse in Event B development: modularisation approach. In: Frappier, M., Glässer, U., Khurshid, S., Laleau, R., Reeves, S. (eds.) ABZ 2010. LNCS, vol. 5977, pp. 174–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11811-1_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laleau, R., Semmak, F., Matoussi, A., Petit, D., Hammad, A., Tatibouet, B.: A first attempt to combine SysML requirements diagrams and B. Innov. Syst. Softw. Eng. 6(1–2), 47–54 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering - From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Wiley (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lecomte, T., Deharbe, D., Prun, E., Mottin, E.: Applying a formal method in industry: a 25-year trajectory. In: Cavalheiro, S., Fiadeiro, J. (eds.) SBMF 2017. LNCS, vol. 10623, pp. 70–87. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70848-5_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mammar, A., Laleau, R.: On the use of domain and system knowledge modeling in goal-based Event-B specifications. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9952, pp. 325–339. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47166-2_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Matoussi, A.: Building abstract formal Specifications driven by goals. Ph.D. thesis, University of Paris-Est, France (2011). https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00680736
  24. 24.
    Matoussi, A., Gervais, F., Laleau, R.: A goal-based approach to guide the design of an abstract Event-B specification. In: ICECCS 2011, pp. 139–148. IEEE Computer SocietyGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Openflexo: Openflexo project (2018). https://github.com/openflexo-team/
  26. 26.
    Parnas, D.L., Madey, J.: Functional documents for computer systems. Sci. Comput. Program. 25(1), 41–61 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pierra, G.: The PLIB ontology-based approach to data integration. In: Jacquart, R. (ed.) Building the Information Society. IIFIP, vol. 156, pp. 13–18. Springer, Boston, MA (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8157-6_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sengupta, K., Hitzler, P.: Web ontology language (OWL). In: Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining, pp. 2374–2378 (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Silva, R.: Towards the composition of specifications in Event-B. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 280, 81–93 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Silva, R., Butler, M.J.: Shared event composition/decomposition in Event-B. In: Aichernig, B.K., de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M. (eds.) FMCO 2010. LNCS, vol. 6957, pp. 122–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25271-6_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Silva, R., Pascal, C., Hoang, T.S., Butler, M.J.: Decomposition tool for Event-B. Softw. Pract. Exper. 41(2), 199–208 (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Suski, G., et al.: The nova control system-goals, architecture, and system design. In: Distributed Computer Control Systems 1982, pp. 45–56. Elsevier (1983)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tan, J.K.: Health management information systems: methods and practical applications. Jones & Bartlett Learning (2001)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tueno, S., Laleau, R., Mammar, A., Frappier, M.: Towards using ontologies for domain modeling within the SysML/KAOS approach. In: RE Workshops, pp. 1–5. IEEE Computer Society (2017)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tueno, S., Laleau, R., Mammar, A., Frappier, M.: Formal Representation of SysML/KAOS Domain Models. ArXiv e-prints, cs.SE, 1712.07406, December 2017. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.07406.pdf
  36. 36.
    Tueno, S., Laleau, R., Mammar, A., Frappier, M.: The SysML/KAOS Domain Modeling Approach. ArXiv e-prints, cs.SE, 1710.00903, September 2017. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.00903.pdf
  37. 37.
    Tueno, S., Laleau, R., Mammar, A., Frappier, M.: The SysML/KAOS Domain Modeling Language (Tool and Case Studies) (2017). https://github.com/stuenofotso/SysML_KAOS_Domain_Model_Parser/tree/master

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steve Jeffrey Tueno Fotso
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marc Frappier
    • 1
  • Régine Laleau
    • 2
  • Amel Mammar
    • 3
  • Michael Leuschel
    • 4
  1. 1.Université de Sherbrooke, GRILSherbrookeCanada
  2. 2.Université Paris-Est Créteil, LACLCréteilFrance
  3. 3.Télécom SudParis, SAMOVAR-CNRSEvryFrance
  4. 4.University of DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations