C-PLAD-SM: Extending Component Requirements with Use Cases and State Machines

Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 722)


Classic approaches to component specification derived from component requirements emphasize identifying external interfaces and behaviors. The C-PLAD requirements model provided a unifying framework for combining domain requirements and application requirements through an iterative refinement process. C-PLAD repackaged UML features and Unified Process techniques into an iterative process. In our continuing work, we found another layer was required—the inclusion of state machines to drive the architectural specifications beyond component interfaces and into component states in order to provide guarantees in our domains of interest, namely safety-critical applications. In this paper we describe an extension to the C-PLAD approach, dubbed C-PLAD-SM, which addresses the gaps in our earlier work.


Component State machine Architecture 


  1. 1.
    Batory, D., Johnson, C., MacDonald, B., von Heeder, D.: Achieving extensibility through product-lines and domain-specific languages: a case study. In: ACM TOSEM, April 2002Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blake, M.B., Cleary, K., Ibanez, L., Ranjan, S., Gary, K.: Use case-driven component specification: a medical applications perspective to product line development. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’05), Software Engineering Track, Sante Fe, New Mexico, Mar 2005Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bontemps, Y., Heymans, P., Schobbens, P.-Y.: From live sequence charts to state machines and back: a guided tour. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 31(12), 999–1014 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campanelli, A., Parreiras, F.: Agile methods tailoring–a systematic literature review. J. Syst. Softw. 110, 85–100 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coleman, D., Hayes, F., Bear, S.: Introducing objectcharts or how to use statecharts in object-oriented design. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 18(1), 1992Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferrentino, A.B., Mills, H.D.: State machines and their semantics in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Software and Applications (COMPSAC’77), pp. 242–251 (1977)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gary, K., Blake, B., Ibanez, L., Gobbi, D., Aylward, S., Cleary, K.: IGSTK: an open source software platform for image-guided surgery. In: IEEE Computer Special Issue on Software Engineering Systems, April 2006Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gary, K., Kokoori, S., David, B., Otoom, M., Cleary, K.: Architecture validation in open source software. In: Proceedings of ROSATEA 2007: The Role of Software Architecture for Testing and Analysis, Boston, MA, July 2007Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gary, K., Kokoori, S., Muffih, B., Enquobahrie, A., Cheng, P., Yaniv, Z., Cleary, K.: Agile methods for safety-critical open source software. J. Softw. Pract. Exp. (2011) (Wiley)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harel, D., Naamad, A.: The STATEMATE semantics of statecharts. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Method. (TOSEM) 5(4), 293–333 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heineman, G.T., Councill, W.T. (eds.): Component-Based Software Engineering: Putting the Pieces Together. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan, F., Jan, S.R., Tahir, M., Khan, S., Ullah, F.: Survey: dealing non-functional requirements at architecture level. VFAST Trans. Softw. Eng. 9(2), 7–13 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process—An Introduction, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Metzger, A., Pohl, K.: Software product line engineering and variability management: achievements and challenges. In: Proceedings of the on Future of Software Engineering, pp. 70–84. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rumbaugh, J., Blaha, M., Premerlani, W., Eddy, F., Lorensen, W.: Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice Hall (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhu, X., Maiden, N., Pavan, P.: Scenarios: bringing requirements and architecture together. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Scenarios and State Machines: Models, Algorithms, and Tools (SCESM’03). Portland, OR (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The School of Computing Informatics, and Decision Systems Engineering, The Ira A. Fulton Schools of EngineeringArizona State UniversityMesaUSA
  2. 2.College of Computing & InformaticsDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations