Advertisement

rt-Inconsistency: A New Property for Real-Time Requirements

  • Amalinda Post
  • Jochen Hoenicke
  • Andreas Podelski
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6603)

Abstract

We introduce rt-inconsistency, a property of real-time requirements. The property reflects that the requirements specify apparently inconsistent timing constraints. We present an algorithm to check rt-inconsistency automatically. The algorithm works via a stepwise reduction to real-time model checking. We implement the algorithm using an existing module for the reduction and the Uppaal tool for the real-time model checking. As a case study, we apply our prototype implementation to existing real-time requirements for automotive projects at Bosch. The case study demonstrates the relevance of rt-inconsistency for detecting errors in industrial real-time requirements specifications.

Keywords

Model Check Linear Temporal Logic Predicate Symbol Requirement Engineer Infrared Lamp 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Abadi, M., Lamport, L.: An old-fashioned recipe for real time. In: Huizing, C., de Bakker, J.W., Rozenberg, G., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) REX 1991. LNCS, vol. 600, pp. 1–27. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Behrmann, G., David, A., Larsen, K.G.: A tutorial on UPPAAL (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dahlstedt, A.G., Persson, A.: Requirements interdependencies - moulding the state of research into a research agenda. In: REFSQ, pp. 71–80 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ehlers, R., Mattmüller, R., Peter, H.-J.: Combining symbolic representations for solving timed games. In: Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) FORMATS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6246, pp. 107–121. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hayes, J.H.: Building a requirement fault taxonomy: Experiences from a NASA verification and validation research project. In: ISSRE (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heimdahl, M.P.E., Leveson, N.G.: Completeness and consistency analysis of state-based requirements. IEEE Trans. on SW Engineering, 3–14 (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heitmeyer, C.L., Jeffords, R.D., Labaw, B.G.: Automated consistency checking of requirements specifications. ACM Trans. on SW Eng. and Methodology 5(3), 231–261 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoenicke, J.: Combination of Processes, Data, and Time. PhD thesis, University of Oldenburg (July 2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    IEEE. Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leveson, N.G.: System safety in computer-controlled automotive systems. In: SAE World Conference (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meyer, R., Faber, J., Hoenicke, J., Rybalchenko, A.: Model checking duration calculus: a practical approach. Formal Asp. Comput. 20(4-5), 481–505 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walia, G.S., Carver, J.C.: A systematic literature review to identify and classify software requirement errors. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(7), 1087–1109 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu, L., Su, S., Luo, S., Su, Y.: Completeness and consistency analysis on requirements of distributed event-driven systems. In: TASE (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhou, C., Hansen, M.R.: Duration Calculus: A Formal Approach to Real-Time Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhou, C., Hoare, C., Ravn, A.: A calculus of durations. In: IPL (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amalinda Post
    • 1
  • Jochen Hoenicke
    • 2
  • Andreas Podelski
    • 2
  1. 1.Robert Bosch GmbHStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.University of FreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations