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.

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)CrossRefMATHGoogle 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)MATHGoogle 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