Advertisement

Reduction and slicing of hierarchical state machines

  • Mats P. E. Heimdahl
  • Michael W. Whalen
Regular Sessions Program Analysis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1301)

Abstract

Formal specification languages are often criticized for being difficult to understand, difficult to use, and unacceptable by software practitioners. Notations based on state machines, such as, Statecharts, Requirements State Machine Language (RSML), and SCR, are suitable for modeling of embedded systems and eliminate many of the main drawbacks of formal specification languages. Although a specification language can help eliminate accidental complexity, the inherent complexity of many of today's systems inevitably leads to large and complex specifications. Thus, there is a need for mechanisms to simplify a formal specification and present information to analysts and reviewers in digestible chunks.

In this paper, we present a two tiered approach to slicing (or simplification) of hierarchical finite state machines. We allow an analyst to simplify a specification based on a scenario. The remaining behavior, called an interpretation of the specification, can then be sliced to extract the information effecting selected variables and transitions.

To evaluate the effectiveness and utility of slicing in hierarchical state machines, we have implemented a prototype tool and applied our slicing approach to parts of a specification of a large avionics system called TCAS II (Traffic alert and Collision Avoidance System II).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Chang and D.J. Richardson. Static and dynamic specification slicing. In Proceedings of the Fourth Irvine Software Symposium, April 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Harel. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming, 8:231–274, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Harel, H. Lachover, A. Naamad, A. Pnueli, M. Politi, R. Sherman, A. ShtullTrauring, and M. Trakhtenbrot. Statemate: A working environment for the development of complex reactive systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(4):403–414, April 1990.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Harel and A. Naamad. The STATEMATE semantics of Statecharts. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol-5(4):293–333, October 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Harel and A. Pnueli. On the development of reactive systems. In K.R. Apt, editor, Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, pages 477–498. Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. P.E. Heimdahl and N.G. Leveson. Completeness and Consistency Analysis of State-Based Requirements. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 3–14, April 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. P.E. Heimdahl and N.G. Leveson. Completeness and Consistency Analysis of State-Based Requirements. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, TSE22(6):363–377, June 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. L. Heitmeyer, R.D. Jeffords, and B. L. Labaw. Consistency checking of SCRstyle requirements specifications. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol-5(3):231–261, July 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. L. Heitmeyer, B. L. Labaw, and D. Kiskis. Consistency checking of SCR-style requirements specifications. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, March 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. L. Heninger. Specifying software for complex systems: New techniques and their application. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 6(1):2–13, January 1980.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D.J. Keenan and M.P.E. Heimdahl. Code generation from hierarchicl state machines. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. G. Leveson, M. P.E. Heimdahl, H. Hildreth, J. Reese, and R. Ortega. Experiences using Statecharts for a system requirements specification. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, pages 31–41, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. G. Leveson, M. P.E. Heimdahl, H. Hildreth, and J. D. Reese. Requirements specification for process-control systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(9):694–707, September 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. Oda and K. Araki. Specification slicing in formal methods of software engineering. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Computer Software and Applications Conference, November 1993.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A.M. Sloane and J. Holdsworth. Beyond traditional program slicing. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pages 180–186, January 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.M. Spivy. The Z Notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice-Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Weiser. Program slicing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-10(4):352–357, July 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mats P. E. Heimdahl
    • 1
  • Michael W. Whalen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Minnesota, Institute of TechnologyMinneapolis

Personalised recommendations