Guidelines for formalizing Fusion object-oriented analysis models

  • B. W. Bates
  • J. -M. Bruel
  • R. B. France
  • M. M. Larrondo-Petrie
Formal Methods in System Development
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1080)


The growing interest in object-oriented analysis and design methods (OOMs) in the software development industry can be attributed to the support they give to some of the more significant software engineering principles, for example, separation of concerns and generality. On the other hand, most OOMs, like their structured analysis and design predecessors, produce models that are not amenable to rigorous semantic analyses. This problem can be attributed to the lack of firm semantic bases for the modeling notations and concepts. In this paper we show how a particular OOM, the Fusion analysis method, can be made more formal while preserving its essential qualities. Our approach involves integrating the Z formal specification style with the Fusion method. The result is an OOM that produces semantically analyzable Fusion models of behavior at the requirements level.


Formal Specification Techniques Object-Oriented Analysis Transformations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brian W. Bates, Jean-Michel Bruel, Robert B. France, and Maria M. Larrondo-Petrie. Experiences with Formalizing Fusion Object-Oriented Analysis Models. FAU Technical Report TR-CSE-95-44, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL-33431, USA, November 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Booch. Object-oriented analysis and design with applications. Benjamin/Cummings, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Robert H. Bourdeau and Betty H.C. Cheng. A formal semantics for object model diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(10):799–821, October 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Coleman, P. Arnold, S. Bodoff, C. Dollin, H. Gilchrist, F. Hayes, and P. Jeremaes. Object-Oriented Development: The Fusion Method. Prentice Hall, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. DeMarco. Structured Analysis and System Specification. Prentice-Hall, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. France and M. M. Larrondo-Petrie. A two-dimensional view of integrated formal and informal specification techniques. In ZUM'95, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 967. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. France and M. M. Larrondo-Petrie. Understanding the role of formal specification techniques in requirements engineering. In in Proceedings of The 8th SEI Conference on Software Engineering Education, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 895. Springer-Verlag, 1995, pages 207–222.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. B. France and M. M. Larrondo-Petrie. From structured analysis to formal specifications: State of the theory. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM Computer Science Conference. ACM, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. A. Hall. Using Z as a specification calculus for object-oriented systems. In D. Bjørner, C. A. R. Hoare, and H. Langmaack, editors, VDM and Z — Formal Methods in Software Development, volume 428 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 290–318. VDM-Europe, Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. C. Hartrum and P. D. Bailor. Teaching formal extensions of informal-based object-oriented analysis methodologies. In Proc. Computer Science Education, pages 389–409, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    I. J. Hayes, editor. Specification Case Studies. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science, 2nd edition, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    I. Jacobson. Object oriented software engineering. Addison-Wesley, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. B. Jones. ICL ProofPower. BCS FACS FACTS, Series III, 1(1):10–13, Winter 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. C. Mander and F. Polack. Rigorous specification using structured systems analysis and Z. Information and Software Technology, 37(5):285–291, May 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. L. Meira and A. L. C. Cavalcanti. Modular object-oriented Z specifications. In Nicholls [17], pages 173–192.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    John Murphy and Jane Grimson. The Jupiter System: A Prototype for Multidatabase Interoperability. In Proceedings of the 12th British National Conference on Databases, BNCOD-12, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. E. Nicholls, editor. Workshops in Computing. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Rumbaugh, M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, F. Eddy, and W. Lorensen. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. A. Schuman, D. H. Pitt, and P. J. Byers. Object-oriented process specification. In C. Rattray, editor, Specification and Verification of Concurrent Systems, Workshops in Computing, pages 21–70. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lesley T. Semmens and Pat M. Allen. Using Yourdon and Z: An approach to formal specification. In Nicholls [17], pages 228–253.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Shlaer and S. J. Mellor. Object lifecycles: Modeling the world in states. Prentice Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Graeme Smith. An Object-Oriented Approach to Formal Specification. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Queensland, St. Lucia 4072, Australia, October 1992.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. M. Spivey. The f uzz Manual. Computing Science Consultancy, 34 Westlands Grove, Stockton Lane, York YO3 0EF, UK, 2nd edition, July 1992.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. M. Spivey. The Z Notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science, 2nd edition, 1992.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    I. Toyn. CADiZ Quick Reference Guide. York Software Engineering Ltd, University of York, York YO1 5DD, UK, 1990.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. Wirfs-Brock and B. Wilkerson. Designing object oriented software. Prentice-Hall, 1990.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Xiaoping Jia. ZTC: A Type Checker for Z — User's Guide. Institute for Software Engineering, Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, DePaul University, Chicago, IL 60604, USA, 1994.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    E. Yourdon. Modern Systems Analysis. Prentice-Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    E. Yourdon and L. Constantine. Structured Design: Fundamentals of a Discipline of Computer Program and Systems Design. Prentice-Hall, 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. W. Bates
    • 1
  • J. -M. Bruel
    • 1
  • R. B. France
    • 1
  • M. M. Larrondo-Petrie
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science & EngineeringFlorida Atlantic UniversityBoca RatonUSA

Personalised recommendations