When are observable states necessary?

Systems Engineering

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 228-240

  Botta, Rick ^a   Bahill, Zach ^b   Bahill, Terry ^c  

^a BAE SYSTEMS   (United States)

^b BOEING COMPANY   (United States)

^c University of Arizona   (United States)

Author keywords

COTS; Reuse; State machines; System equivalence; Testing; Verification

Indexed keywords

COMMERCIAL OFF-THE-SHELF (COTS); REUSE; STATE MACHINES; SYSTEM EQUIVALENCE; VERIFICATION;

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS; SYSTEMS ENGINEERING; TESTING;

PRODUCT DESIGN;

EID: 33748417549     PISSN: 10981241     EISSN: 15206858     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sys.20053     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Apollo 13, produced by Imagine Entertainment and Universal Pictures, Hollywood, CA, 1995.
2. A.T. Bahill, Use case template, http://www.sie.arizona.edu/sysengr/ slides/template.doc, 2006.
3. A.T. Bahill and S.J. Henderson, Requirements development, verification and validation exhibited in famous failures, Syst Eng 8(1) (2005), 1-14.
4. Y. Billah and B. Scanlan, Resonance, Tacoma Narrows bridge failure, and undergraduate physics textbooks, Am J Phys 59(2) (February 1991), 118-124, see also http://www. ketchum.org/wind.html.
5. M.R. Blackburn, R. Busser, and A, Nauman, Mars Polar Lander fault identification using model-based testing, Proc Eighth Int Conf Eng Complex Comput Syst, 2002.
6. R.D. Busser, M.R. Blackburn, A.M. Nauman, and T.R. Morgan, Reducing cost of high integrity systems through model-based testing, Digital Avionic Syst Conf, October 24-28, 2004, pp. 6.B.1-1-6.B.1-13.
7. W.L. Chapman, A.T. Bahill, and W.A. Wymore, Engineering modeling and design, CRC Press, Boca Raton, PL, 1992.
8. Chernobyl-1, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/ fschernobyl.html, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 2006.
9. Chernobyl-2, http://www.infoukes.com/history/chornobyl/zuzak/page-07. html, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 2006.
10. Chernobyl-3, http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 2006.
11. Chernobyl-4, http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter27. html, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 2006.
12. J. Daniels, P.W. Werner, and A.T. Bahill, Quantitative methods for tradeoff analyses, Syst Eng 4(3) (2001), 199-212.
13. Department of Defense (DOD), Directive Number 5000.1, The Defense Acquisition System, Washington, DC, May 12,2003.
14. M.B. Dwyer, J. Hatcliff, R. Joehanes, S. Laubach, C.S. Pasareanu, H. Zheng, and W. Visser, Tool-supported program abstraction for finite-state verification, Int Conf Software Eng, 2001, pp. 177-187.
15. E. Evans, Domain-driven design: Tackling complexity in the heart of software, Addison-Wesley; Boston, 2004.
16. H. Gomaa, Designing concurrent, distributed, and real-time applications with UML, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 2000.
17. D. Harel and A. Naamad, The STATEMATE semantics of statecharts, ACM Trans Software Eng Methodol 5(4) (1996), 293-333.
18. F.J. Hill and G.R. Peterson, Introduction to switching theory and logical design, Wiley, New York, 1981.
19. R.H. Katz, Contemporary logic design, Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City, CA, 1994.
20. R. Kunzig, Europe's dream, Discover 18 (May 1997), 96-103.
21. Lewis Spacecraft Mission Failure Investigation Board, Final Report, NASA, Washington D.C., 12, February 1998.
22. W, Liu, Interaction abstraction for compositional finite state systems, SPIN model checking and software verification, Proc 7th Int SPIN Workshop, Stanford, CA, August 30- September 1, 2000, pp. 148-162, http://netlib.bell- labs.com/netiib/spin/ws00/188S0150.pdf.
23. Mars Program Independent Assessment Team Summary Report, NASA, Washington D.C., March 14,2000.
24. J.A. Moody, W.L. Chapman, F.D. Van Voorhees, and A.T. Bahill, Metrics and case studies for evaluating engineering designs, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
25. NASA Faster Better Cheaper Task Final Report, NASA, Washington D.C., 2, March 2000.
26. NSF Center for Empirically Based Software Engineering, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 2005, http://www.cebase.org/www/frames.html.
27. W.B. Rouse, J.A. Cannon-Bowers, and E. Salas, The role of mental models in team performance in complex systems, IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet 22(6) (1992), 1296-1308.
28. H.A. Simon, A behavioral model of rational choice, Quart J Econom59(1955),99-118.
29. H.A. Simon, The architecture of complexity, Proc Amer Phil Soc 106 (1962), 467-482.
30. Software Engineering Institute, http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cbs/index.html, Pittsburgh PA, 2005.
31. SysML, www.SysML.org, 2006.
32. Systems and Software Consortium, http://www,systemsand-software.org/ssci/ default.asp, Herndon VA, 2005.
33. F. Szidarovszky and A.T. Bahill., "Stability analysis," The electrical engineering handbook, R.C. Dorf (Editor), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1993, pp. 207-223, 1993, 2nd edition, 1997, pp. 223-238.
34. F. Szidarovszky and A.T. Bahill, Linear systems theory, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1998.
35. Tacoma 1, http://www.enm.bris.ac.uk/amm/tacoma/tacoma. html, 2006, University of Bristol, UK,.
36. Tacoma2, http://ketchum.org/bridgecollapse.html, 2006.
37. Titanic, a Lightstorm Entertainment Production (20th Century Fox and Paramount), Hollywood, CA, 1997.
38. USC Center for Software Engineering, http://sun-set.usc.edu/research/ COCOTS/, Los Angeles, CA, 2005.
39. F. von Foerster, Observing systems, Intersystems, Seaside,CA, 1982.
40. A.W. Wymore, Model-based systems engineering, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1993.
41. A.W. Wymore and A.T. Bahill, When can we safely reuse systems, upgrade systems or use COTS components? Syst Eng 3(2) (2000), 82-95.