Abstract
Scenarios and properties are used to describe requirements specifications. Behavioral models can be synthesized from these scenarios and properties. New scenarios and properties are usually added to requirements specification after the creation of the behavioral models. Alphabet is the set of actions/events used to describe scenarios and properties. Alternative alphabets arise when a new scenario or property is added to the requirements with a new alphabet. Modifying behavioral models in the case of alternative alphabets need more considerations because existing synthesis algorithms must be rerun with the new alphabet. We propose additional steps that modify the behavioral model of properties to reflect new actions/events discovered in scenarios (or properties). Similarly, we propose additional steps that modify the behavioral model of scenarios to reflect new events (actions) discovered in properties.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Label Transition System (LTS) is a formalism used to describe the behavioral model.
- 2.
Model Transition System (MTS) is a formalism used to describe the partial behavioral model.
- 3.
The problem is that the synthesis algorithm assumes the alphabet is fixed. However, in the case of alternative alphabet such characteristic does not hold.
- 4.
Each property has its own behavioral model, on the other hand each entity object in scenarios has its own behavioral model. Also, the behavioral model of all properties is the parallel composition of their behavioral models. Similarly, the behavioral model of all scenarios is the parallel composition of the behavioral models of the entities (objects).
- 5.
This will be explain in the Sect. 81.3.2.2
- 6.
The temporal logic that we mean here is synchronous temporal logic and not asynchronous temporal logic.
- 7.
This is done by assuming that asynchronous temporal logic is used. However, in event-based model synchronous temporal logic should be used. On the other hand, Lamport temporal logic does not use the \(next\) operator, \(X\), which makes it closed (invariant) under stuttering.
- 8.
This is similar to the term anon used in [8] where is used to represent other events (actions) that the system may use but is not used in defining properties.
- 9.
See Sect. 81.4 for both Cases (1) and (3)
- 10.
Each scenario contains interactions for all entities in the scenario. On the other hand, the behavioral model is created for each entity.
References
Jacobson I, Booch G, Rumbaugh J (1999) The unified software development process. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing, Boston
Weidenhaupt K, Pohl K, Jarke M, Haumer P (1998) Scenarios in system development: current practice. Softw IEEE 15(2):34–45
Weidenhaupt K, Pohl K, Jarke M, Haumer P (1998) Scenario usage in system development: a report on current practice. In: Proceedings of third international conference on requirements engineering 1998
van Lamsweerde A (2009) Requirements engineering: from system goals to UML models to software specifications. Wiley, New York
Haugen (ed) (1999) Recommendation Z.120: message sequence chart (MSC). International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Geneva
Krka I, Brun Y, Edwards G, Medvidovic N (2009) Synthesizing partial component-level behavior models from system specifications. In: ESEC/FSE’ 09: proceedings of the 7th joint meeting of the European software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on the foundations of software engineering. ACM, New York, pp 305–314
Uchitel S, Brunet G, Chechik M (2009) Synthesis of partial behavior models from properties and scenarios. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 35(3):384–406
Giannakopoulou D, Magee J (2003) Fluent model checking for eventbased systems. In: ESEC / SIGSOFT FSE. ACM, New York, pp 257–266
OMG (2005) Object constraint language specification, version 2.0. Object Modeling Group, June 2005. http://www.fparreiras/papers/OCLSpec.pdf
Uchitel S, Kramer J, Magee J (2003) Synthesis of behavioral models from scenarios. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 29(2):99–115
Haumer P, Pohl K, Weidenhaupt K (1998) Requirements elicitation and validation with real world scenes. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24:1036–1054
Dzida W, Freitag R (1998) Making use of scenarios for validating analysis and design. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24:1182–1196
Letier E, Kramer J, Magee J, Uchitel S (2008) Deriving event-based transition systems from goal-oriented requirements models. Autom Softw Eng 15(2):175–206
Bontemps Y, Heymans P, Schobbens PY (2005) From live sequence charts to state machines and back: a guided tour. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 31(12):999–1014
Lamport L (1983) What good is temporal logic? In: IFIP congress, pp 657–668
Lamport L (1983) Specifying concurrent program modules. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 5:190–222. 10.1145/69624.357207
Lamport L (1994) The temporal logic of actions. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 16:872–923. 10.1145/177492.177726
Whittle J, Schumann J (2000) Generating statechart designs from scenarios. In: ICSE ’00: proceedings of the 22nd international conference on software engineering. ACM, New York, pp 314–323
Damas C, Lambeau B, Dupont P, van Lamsweerde A (2005) Generating annotated behavior models from end-user scenarios. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 31(12):1056–1073
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this paper
Cite this paper
Lafi, M., Carvalho, J. (2013). Behavioral Models with Alternative Alphabets. In: Elleithy, K., Sobh, T. (eds) Innovations and Advances in Computer, Information, Systems Sciences, and Engineering. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 152. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3535-8_81
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3535-8_81
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-3534-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-3535-8
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)