An Approach of Requirements Tracing in Formal Refinement

  • Michael Jastram
  • Stefan Hallerstede
  • Michael Leuschel
  • Aryldo G. RussoJr
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6217)

Abstract

Formal modeling of computing systems yields models that are intended to be correct with respect to the requirements that have been formalized. The complexity of typical computing systems can be addressed by formal refinement introducing all the necessary details piecemeal. We report on preliminary results that we have obtained for tracing informal natural-language requirements into formal models across refinement levels. The approach uses the WRSPM reference model for requirements modeling, and Event-B for formal modeling and formal refinement. The combined use of WRSPM and Event-B is facilitated by the rudimentary refinement notion of WRSPM, which provides the foundation for tracing requirements to formal refinements.

We assume that requirements are evolving, meaning that we have to cope with frequent changes of the requirements model and the formal model. Our approach is capable of dealing with frequent changes, making use of corresponding techniques already built into the Event-B method.

Keywords

Requirements Traceability WRSPM Formal Modeling Refinement Event-B 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrial, J.-R.: The B-Book: Assigning Programs to Meanings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrial, J.-R.: Formal Methods in Industry: Achievements, Problems, Future. In: Proc. of the 28th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, pp. 761–768 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrial, J.-R.: Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abrial, J.-R., Butler, M., Hallerstede, S., Voisin, L.: An open extensible tool environment for Event-B. In: Liu, Z., He, J. (eds.) ICFEM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4260, pp. 588–605. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berry, D.M.: Formal Methods: The Very Idea – Some Thoughts About Why They Work When They Work. Science of Computer Programming 42(1), 11–27 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bjørner, D.: From Domain to Requirements. In: Concurrency, Graphs and Models: Essays dedicated to Ugo Montanari on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, pp. 278–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Börger, E., Stärk, R.: Abstract State Machines: A Method for High-Level System Design and Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Butler, M.: Decomposition Structures for Event-B. In: Leuschel, M., Wehrheim, H. (eds.) IFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5423, pp. 20–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Darimont, R., Delor, E., Massonet, P., van Lamsweerde, A.: GRAIL/KAOS: An Environment for Goal-Driven Requirements Engineering. In: Proc. of the 19th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, pp. 612–613. ACM, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gotel, O., Finkelstein, A.: An Analysis of the Requirements Traceability Problem. In: Proc. of the First Int. Conf. on Requirements Engineering, pp. 94–101 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gunter, C.A., Jackson, M., Gunter, E.L., Zave, P.: A Reference Model for Requirements and Specifications. IEEE Software 17, 37–43 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hallerstede, S., Leuschel, M.: How to Explain Mistakes. In: Gibbons, J., Oliveira, J.N. (eds.) TFM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5846, pp. 105–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoare, C.A.R., He, J.: Unifying Theories of Programming. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jackson, M.: Problem Frames: Analysing and Structuring Software Development Problems. Addison-Wesley/ACM Press (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jastram, M.: Requirements Traceability. Technical report, U. Southampton (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones, C.B.: Systematic Software Development Using VDM. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1990)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leuschel, M., Butler, M.: ProB: An Automated Analysis Toolset for the B Method. Int. Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 10(2), 185–203 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Loesch, F., Gmehlich, R., Grau, K., Jones, C., Mazzara, M.: Report on Pilot Deployment in Automotive Sector. Technical Report D7, DEPLOY Project (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marincic, J., Wupper, H., Mader, A.H., Wieringa, R.J.: Obtaining Formal Models Through Non-Monotonic Refinement (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parnas, D.L., Madey, J.: Functional Documents for Computer Systems. Science of Computer programming 25(1), 41–61 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Plagge, D., Leuschel, M.: Seven at One Stroke: LTL Model Checking for High-Level Specifications in B, Z, CSP, and More. Int. Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (1) (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Praxis: Reveal – A Keystone of Modern Systems Engineering. Technical report (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Jastram
    • 1
  • Stefan Hallerstede
    • 1
  • Michael Leuschel
    • 1
  • Aryldo G. RussoJr
    • 2
  1. 1.Heinrich-Heine Universität Düsseldorf 
  2. 2.Research Institute of State of São Paulo (IPT) 

Personalised recommendations