Integration of sequential scenarios

  • Jules Desharnais
  • Marc Frappier
  • Ridha Khédri
  • Ali Mili
Regular Sessions System Modeling
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1301)


We give a formal relation-based definition of scenarios and we show how different scenarios can be integrated to obtain a more global view of user-system interactions. We restrict ourselves to the sequential case, meaning that we suppose that there is only one user (thus, the scenarios we wish to integrate cannot occur concurrently). Our view of scenarios is state-based, rather than event-based, like most of the other approaches, and can be grafted to the well-established specification language Z. Also, the end product of scenario integration, the specification of the functional aspects of the system, is given as a relation; this specification can be refined using independently developed methods. Our formal description is coupled with a diagram-based, transition-system like, presentation of scenarios, which is better suited to communication between clients and specifiers.


Scenario integration user-system interaction requirements elicitation relational approach state-based approach 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Benner, K. M., Feather, M. S., Johnson, W. L., Zorman, L. A.: Utilizing Scenarios in the Software Development Process. In Prakash, N., Rolland, C. and Pernici, B., Editors, Information System Development Process, Elsevier Science Publisher B. V., North-Holland (1993) 117–134Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berghammer, R., Schmidt, G.: The RELVIEW-System. In Choffrut, C. and Jantzen, M., Editors, STAGS 91, 8th Annual Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (Feb. 1991) Hamburg, Germany, Lect. Notes in Comp. Sci. 480, Springer, 535–536Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boiten, E., Derrick, J., Bowman, H., Steen, M.: Consistency and Refinement for Partial Specification in Z. In Gaudel, M. C. and Woodcock, J., Editors, FME'96: Industrial Benefit of Formal Methods, 3rd Int. Symp. of Formal Methods Europe, Lect. Notes in Comp. Sci. 1051, Springer (Mar. 1996) 287–306Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borgida, A., Mylopoulos, J., Reiter, R.: “... And Nothing Else Changes”: The Frame Problem in Procedure Specifications. 15th IEEE Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (May 1993) Baltimore, MD, 303–314Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boudriga, N., Elloumi, F., Mili, A.: On the Lattice of Specifications: Applications to a Specification Methodology. Formal Aspects of Computing 4 (1992) 544–571Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brink, C., Kahl, W., Schmidt, G., Editors: Relational Methods in Computer Science. Springer (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Campbell, R. L.: Will the Real Scenario Please Stand Up? ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 24, 2 (Apr. 1992) 6–8Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campbell, R. L.: Categorizing Scenarios: A Quixotic Quest? ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 24, 4 (Oct. 1992) 16–17Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Damon, C. A., Jackson, D., Jha, S.: Checking Relational Specifications with Binary Decision Diagrams. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 21, 6 (Nov. 1996) 70–80Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-Directed Requirements Acquisition. Sci. Comput. Programming 20 (1993) 3–50Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Desharnais, J., Belkhiter, N., Ben Mohamed Sghaier, S., Tchier, F., Jaoua, A., Mili, A., Zaguia, N.: Embedding a Demonic Semilattice in a Relation Algebra. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 149, 2 (Oct. 1995) 333–360Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Desharnais, J., Mili, A., Nguyen, T. T.: Refinement and Demonic Semantics. In Brink et al. [6], chapter 11, 166-183.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diller, A.: Z: An Introduction to Formal Methods. John Wiley & Sons (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frappier, M., Mili, A., Desharnais, J.: Program Construction by Parts. Sci. Comput. Programming 26, 1-3 (May 1996) 237–254Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glinz, M.: An Integrated Formal Model of Scenarios Based on Statecharts. In Fifth European Software Engineering Conference (1995) Lect. Notes in Comp. Sci. 989, Springer, 254–271Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: A Visual Formalism for Complex Systems. Sci. Comput. Programming 8 (1987) 231–274Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harel, D.: On Visual Formalisms. Comm. ACM 31, 5 (May 1988) 514–530Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holbrook III, H.: A Scenario-Based Methodology for Conducting Requirements Elicitation. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 15, 1 (Jan. 1990) 95–104Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hsia, P., Samuel, J., Gao, J., Kung, D., Toyoshima, Y., Chen, C.: Formal Approach to Scenario Analysis. IEEE Software 11, 2 (Mar. 1994) 33–41Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Janicki, R., Parnas, D. L., Zucker, J.: Tabular Representations in Relational Documents. In Brink et al. [6], chapter 12, 184–196.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kawashita, I.: Spécification Formelle de Systèmes d'Information Interactifs par la Technique des Scénarios. Master's thesis, Département d'informatique et de recherche opérationnelle, University de Montréal, Montréal (Nov. 1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lamport, L.: The temporal logic of actions. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 16 (May 1994) 872–923Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lamport, L.: TLA in Pictures. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21, 9 (Sep. 1995) 768–775Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lubars, M., Potts, C., Richter, C.: Developing Initial OOA Models. In 15th IEEE International Conf. on Software Engineering (1993) 255–264Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lustman, F.: A Formal Approach to Scenario Integration. Annals of Software Engineering, to appearGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McCarthy, J., Hayes, P.: Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. In Melzter, B. and Michie, D., Editors, Machine Intelligence 4, Edinburgh University Press (1969) 463-502Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mili, A.: A Relational Approach to the Design of Deterministic Programs. Acta Informatica 20 (1983) 315–328Google Scholar
  28. 8.
    Mili, A., Desharnais, J., Mili, F.: Relational Heuristics for the Design of Deterministic Programs. Acta Informatica 24, 3 (1987) 239–276Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mili A. Desharnais, J., Mili, F.: Computer Program Construction. Oxford University Press, New York. NY (1994)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Parnas, D. L., Madey, J., Iglewski, M.: Precise Documentation of Well-Structured programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20, 12 (Dec. 1994) 948–976Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rubin, K. S., Goldberg, A.: Object Behavior Analysis. Comm. ACM 35, 9 (Sep. 1992) 48–62Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schmidt, G., Ströhlein, T.: Relations and Graphs, Discrete Mathematics for Computer Scientists. EATCS-Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science, Springer (1993)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Somé, S., Dssouli, R., Vaucher, J.: From Scenarios to Timed Automata: Building Specifications from Users Requirements. In 2nd Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference (1995)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Spivey, J. M.: Understanding Z: A Specification Language and its Formal Semantics, Cambridge Tracts in Theoret. Computer Science 3, Cambridge Univ. Press, UK (1988)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jules Desharnais
    • 1
  • Marc Frappier
    • 2
  • Ridha Khédri
    • 1
  • Ali Mili
    • 3
  1. 1.Département d'informatiqueUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
  2. 2.Département de mathématiques et d'informatiqueUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations