Model Driven Synthesis of Behavioral Models from Textual Use Cases

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 132)


Software system’s requirements are often specified by textual use cases due to their concrete and narrative style of expression. However, textual use cases have limitation in the synthesis of behavior since they have a poor basis for the formal interpretation. Existing synthesis techniques are either largely manual or focused on the use case interactions. In this paper, we present a framework from a model-based point of view to automatically synthesize system behavior from textual use cases to Petri net model. The generated Petri net model can describe component module interactions, and can be checked with the model checking tools. We have implemented our framework and demonstrated the synthesis process via an example.


System requirement use case metamodel behavior metamodel Petri net model transformation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Breaux, T.D., Anton, A.I., Doyle, J.: Semantic Parameterization: A Process for Modeling Domain Descriptions. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 18(2), Article 5 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cockburn, A.: Writing Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Damas, C., Lambeau, B., Dupont, P., van Lamsweerde, A.: Generating annotated behavior models from end-user scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(12), 1056–1073 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ding, Z.: Static Analysis of Concurrent Programs Using Ordinary Differential Equations. In: Leucker, M., Morgan, C. (eds.) ICTAC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5684, pp. 1–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ding, Z., Shen, H., Kandel, A.: Performance Analysis of Service Composition Based on Fuzzy Differential Equations. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 19(1), 164–178 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gervasi, V., Zowghi, D.: Reasoning About Inconsistencies in Natural Language Requirements. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 14(3), 277–330 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating sequential processes. Communication of ACM 21(8), 666–677 (1978)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kof, L.: Scenarios: Identifying Missing Objects and Actions by Means of Computational Linguistics. In: Proceedings of RE 2007, pp. 121–130 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee, W.J., Cha, S.D., Kwon, Y.R.: Integration and Analysis of Use Cases Using Modular Petri Nets in Requirements Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(12), 1115–1130 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice- Hall (1989)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Plasil, F., Mencl, V.: Getting ’Whole Picture’ Behavior in a Use Case Model. Transactions of the SDPS: Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science 7(4), 63–79 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Synthesis of behavioral models from scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 29(2), 99–115 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Incremental elaboration of scenario-based specifications and behavior models using implied scenarios. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 13(1) (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Whittle, J., Schumann, J.: Generating statechart designs from scenarios. In: Proceedings of ICSE (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lab of Scientific Computing and Software EngineeringZhejiang Sci-Tech UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations