Safety hazard identification by misuse cases: Experimental comparison of text and diagrams

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 5301 LNCS, Issue , 2008, Pages 721-735

  Stålhane, Tor ^a   Sindre, Guttorm ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

Author keywords

Experiment; Misuse cases; Safety hazards; Use cases

Indexed keywords

EXPERIMENTS; FAILURE ANALYSIS; GRAPHIC METHODS; HAZARDOUS MATERIALS; LINGUISTICS; MODELS;

CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS; EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISONS; MISUSE CASES; SAFETY HAZARDS; USE CASE DIAGRAMS; USE CASE MODELS; USE CASES;

SAFETY ENGINEERING;

EID: 56649123117     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-87875-9_50     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (34)

1. Firesmith, D.G.: Engineering Safety Requirements, Safety Constraints, and Safety-Critical Requirements. Journal of Object Technology, 3, 27-42 (2004)
2. McDermott, J., Fox, C.: Using Abuse Case Models for Security Requirements Analysis. In: 15th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC 1999). IEEE Computer Soceity Press, Los Alamitos (1999)
3. Leveson, N.G.: Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1995)
4. Lutz, R.R.: Software Engineering for Safety: A Roadmap. In: Finkelstein, A. (ed.) The Future of Software Engineering, pp. 213-226. ACM Press, New York (2000)
5. Sindre, G., Opdahl, A.L.: Eliciting Security Requirements with Misuse Cases. Requirements Engineering 10, 34-44 (2005)
6. Alexander, I.F.: Initial Industrial Experience of Misuse Cases in Trade-Off Analysis. In: Pohl, K. (ed.) 10th Anniversary IEEE Joint International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2002), Essen, Germany, 9-13 September. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2002)
7. Alexander, I.F.: Misuse Cases, Use Cases with Hostile Intent. IEEE Software 20, 58-66 (2003)
8. Sindre, G.: A look at misuse cases for safety concerns. In: ME 2007, Geneva, Switzerland. IFIP. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
9. Stålhane, T., Sindre, G.: A comparison of two approaches to safety analysis based on use cases. In: ER 2007, Auckland, New Zealand. LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
10. Stamatis, D.H.: Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from theory to execution. American Society fbor Quality (ASQ), Milwaukee, Wisconsin (1995)
11. Achour-Salinesi, C.B., Rolland, C., Maiden, N.A.M., Souveyet, C.: Guiding Use Case Authoring: Results from an Empirical Study. In: 4th International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE 1999), 7-11 June, pp. 36-43. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1999)
12. Cox, K., Phalp, K.: Replicating the CREWS Use Case Authoring Guidelines Experiment. Empirical Software Engineering 5, 245-267 (2000)
13. Anda, B., Sjøberg, D.I.K., Jørgensen, M.: Quality and Understandability of Use Case Models. In: Knudsen, J.L. (ed.) ECOOP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2072, pp. 402-428. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
14. Anda, B., Sjøberg, D.I.K.: Investigating the Role of Use Cases in the Construction of Class Diagrams. Empirical Software Engineering 10, 285-309 (2005)
15. Thelin, T., Runeson, P., Regnell, B.: Usage-based reading: an experiment to guide reviewers with use cases. Information & Software Technology 43, 925-938 (2001)
16. Cox, K., Aurum, A., Jeffery, D.R.: An Experiment in Inspecting the Quality of Use Case Descriptions. Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology 36, 211-229 (2004)
17. Bernardez, B., Genero, M., Duran, A., Toro, M.: A Controlled Experiment for Evaluating a Metric-Based Reading Technique for Requirements Inspection. In: 10th International Symposium on Software Metrics (METRICS 2004), 11-17 September, pp. 257-268. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)
18. Batra, D., Hoffer, J.A., Bostrom, R.P.: Comparing Representations with Relational and EER Models. Communications of the ACM 33, 126-139 (1990)
19. Cheng, P.C.-H.: Why Diagrams Are (Sometimes) Six Times Easier than Words: Benefits beyond Locational Indexing. In: Blackwell, A.F., Marriott, K., Shimojima, A. (eds.) Diagrams 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2980, pp. 242-254. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
20. Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11 (1987)
21. Boekelder, A., Steehouder, M.: Selecting and Switching: Some Advantages of Diagrams over Tables and Lists for Presenting Instructions. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 41, 229-241 (1998)
22. Allmendinger, L.: Diagrams and Design Tools in Context. ACM SIGDOC Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation 18, 25-41 (1994)
23. Coll, R.A., Coll, J.H., Thakur, G.: Graphs and tables: a four factor experiment. Communications of the ACM 37, 77-84 (1994)
24. Jacobson, I., Christerson, M., Jonsson, P., Overgaard, G.: Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1992)
25. Cockburn, A.: Writing Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2001)
26. Wirfs-Brock, R.: Designing Scenarios: Making the Case for a Use Case Framework. The Smalltalk Report, vol. 3 (1993)
27. Bertin, J.: Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison (1983)
28. Cheng, P.C.-H., Simon, H.A.: Scientific Discovery and Creative Reasoning with Diagrams. In: Smith, S., et al. (eds.) The Creative Cognition Approach, pp. 205-228. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)
29. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science 35, 982-1003 (1989)
30. Tukey, J.W.: Data analysis and behavioral science or learning to bear the quantitative's man burden by shunning badmandments. In: Jones, L.W. (ed.) The Collected Works of John W. Tukey, Wadsworth, Monterey, CA, vol. III, pp. 187-389 (1986)
31. Heldal, R.: Use cases are more than System Operations. In: 2nd International Workshop on Use Case Modelling (WUsCaM-2005), Montego Bay, Jamaica, October 2-7 (2005)
32. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Host, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic, Norwell (2000)
33. Runeson, P.: Using Students as Experiment Subjects - An Analysis on Graduate and Freshmen Student Data. In: Linkman, S. (ed.) 7th International Conference on Empirical Assessment & Evaluation in Software Engineering (EASE 2003), Keele University, Staffordshire, UK, 8-10 April, pp. 95-102 (2003)
34. Arisholm, E., Sjøberg, D.I.K.: Evaluating the Effect of a Delegated versus Centralized Control Style on the Maintainability of Object-oriented Software. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30, 521-534 (2004)