Methodologies to evolve formal specifications through refinement and retrenchment in an analysis - Revision cycle

Requirements Engineering

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 129-153

  García Duque, Jorge ^a   Pazos Arias, José J ^a   López Nores, Martín ^a,b   Blanco Fernández, Yolanda ^a   Fernández Vilas, Ana ^a   Díaz Redondo, Rebeca P ^a   Ramos Cabrer, Manuel ^a   Gil Solla, Alberto ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIGO   (Spain)

^b Campus Universitario de Vigo   (Spain)

Author keywords

Analysis revision; Formal requirements specifications; Refinement; Retrenchment

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS-REVISION; EVALUATION RESULTS; FORMAL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICATIONS; FORMAL SPECIFICATION; INTEGRATED APPROACH; MODELING FORMALISMS; REFINEMENT; REQUIREMENT SPECIFICATION; RETRENCHMENT;

SPECIFICATIONS;

EID: 67650326896     PISSN: 09473602     EISSN: 1432010X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00766-009-0074-z     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Letier E, van Lamsweerde A (2002) Deriving operational software specifications from system goals. In: Proceedings of 10th ACM SIGSOFT symposium on the foundations of software engineering, Charleston, USA, pp 119-128
2. Liu S (2002) Capturing complete and accurate requirements by refinement. In: Proceedings of 8th IEEE international conference on engineering of complex computer systems. Greenbelt, USA, pp 57-67
3. d'Avila Garcez A, Russo A, Nuseibeh B, Kramer J (2001) An analysis-revision cycle to evolve requirements specifications. In: Proceedings of 16th IEEE international conference on automated software engineering. San Diego, USA, pp 354-358
4. d'Avila Garcez A, Russo A, Nuseibeh B, Kramer J (2003) Combining abductive reasoning and inductive learning to evolve requirements specifications. IEE Proc Softw 150(1):25-38
5. Kakas A, Kowalski R, Toni F (1998) Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming, vol 5. The role of abduction in logic programming. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 235-324
6. Mitchell T (1997) Machine learning. McGraw Hill, NY
7. Pazos-Arias JJ, García-Duque J (2001) SCTL-MUS: A formal methodology for software development of distributed systems: A case study. Formal Aspects Comput 13:50-91
8. Kleene S (1952) Introduction to metamathematics, vol 1 of Bibliotheca mathematica. North-Holland
9. Huth MRA, Jagadeesan R, Schmidt DA (2001) Modal transition systems: A foundation for three-valued program analysis. In: Proceedings of European Symposium on programming, in conjunction with ETAPS. Genoa, Italy, pp 155-169
10. Fitting M (1991) Kleene's logic, generalized. J Logic Comput 1(6):797-810
11. Uchitel S, Kramer J (2001) A workbench for synthesising behaviour models from scenarios. In: Proceedings of 23rd international conference on software engineering. Toronto, Canada, pp 188-197
12. Whittle J, Schumann J (2000) Generating statechart designs from scenarios. In: Proceedings of 22nd international conference on software engineering. Limerick, Ireland, pp 314-323
13. García-Duque J, López-Nores M, Pazos-Arias JJ, Fernández-Vilas A, Díaz-Redondo RP, Gil-Solla A, Blanco-Fernández Y, Ramos-Cabrer M (2006) A six-valued logic to reason about uncertainty and inconsistency in requirements specifications. J Logic Comput 16(2):227-255
14. Fernández-Vilas A, Pazos-Arias JJ, Gil-Solla A, Díaz-Redondo RP, García-Duque J, Barragáns-Martínez AB (2004) Incremental specification with SCTL/MUS-T: A case study. J Syst Softw 70(2):189-208
15. Huth MRA, Jagadeesan R, Schmidt DA (2004) A domain equation for refinement of partial systems. Math Struct Comput Sci 14:469-505
16. Belnap ND (1977) Modern uses of multiple-valued logic, chapter a useful four-valued logic. Reidel, pp 7-37
17. Morgan C (1990) Programing from specifications. Prentice Hall, Englewood cliffs
18. García-Duque J, Pazos-Arias JJ, Barragáns-Martínez AB (2002) An analysis-revision cycle to evolve requirements specifications by using the SCTL-MUS methodology. In: Proceedings of 10th IEEE international conference on requirements engineering. Essen, Germany, pp 282-288
19. Shaw M (1995) Comparing architectural design styles. IEEE Softw 12(6):27-41
20. López-Nores M, Pazos-Arias JJ, García-Duque J, Blanco-Fernández Y, Ramos-Cabrer M, Gil-Solla A, Fernández-Vilas A, Díaz-Redondo RP (2006) Formal specification applied to distributed multiuser services: Experiences in collaborative t-learning. J Syst Softw 79(8):1141-1155
21. Pazos-Arias JJ, López-Nores M, García-Duque J, Gil-Solla A, Ramos-Cabrer M, Blanco-Fernández Y, Díaz-Redondo RP, Fernández-Vilas A (2006) ATLAS: A framework to provide multiuser and distributed t-learning services over MHP. Softw Prac Exp 36(8):845-869
22. Swamy G (1996) Incremental methods for formal verification and logic synthesis. PhD thesis, University of California at Berkeley
23. Díaz-Redondo RP, Pazos-Arias JJ, Fernández-Vilas A, García-Duque J, Gil-Solla A (2005) ARIFS methodology: Reusing incomplete models at the requirements specification stage. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 15(4):607-645
24. López-Nores M, Díaz-Redondo RP, Pazos-Arias JJ, García-Duque J (2004) An improved repository system for effective and efficient reuse of formal verification efforts. In: Proceedings of 11th Asia-Pacific software engineering conference Busan, South Korea, pp 38-45
25. Fickas S, Helm BR (1992) Knowledge representation and reasoning in the design of composite systems. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 18(6):470-482
26. Easterbrook S (1993) Social and technological issues in requirements engineering, chapter Resolving requirements conflicts with computer-supported negotiation. Academic Press, Dublin, pp 41-65
27. Owre S, Rushby J, Shankar N, von Henke F (1995) Formal verification for fault-tolerant architecture: Prolegomena to the design of PVS. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 21(2):107-125
28. Clarke E, Grumberg O, Peled D (2000) Model checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge
29. Tran Van H, van Lamsweerde A, Massonet P, Ponsard C (2004) Goal-oriented requirements animation. In: 12th IEEE Intl. Conf. on Requirements Engineering. Kyoto, Japan, pp 218-228
30. Zowghi D, Gervasi V (2003) On the interplay between consistency, completeness and correctness in requirements evolution. Inf Softw Technol 45:993-1009
31. Satoh K (2003) Computing minimal revised specifications by default logic. In: Proceedings of workshop on intelligent technologies in software engineering, in conjunction with ESEC/FSE. Helsinki, Finland, pp 7-12
32. van Lamsweerde A, Letier E (2000) Handling obstacles in goal-oriented requirements engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 26(10):978-1005
33. Mäkinen E, Systadie; T (2001) MAS - an interactive synthesizer to support behavioral modelling in UML. In: Proceedings of 23rd international conference on software engineering. Toronto, Canada, pp 15-24
34. Uchitel S, Kramer J, Magee J (2003) Behaviour model elaboration using partial labelled transition systems. In: Proceedngs of 4th joint ESEC/ FSE meeting. Helsinki, Finland, pp 19-27
35. van Lamsweerde A (2004) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: A roundtrip from research to practice. In: Proceedings of 12th IEEE international conference on requirements engineering. Kyoto, Japan, pp 4-8
36. Back R, Akademi A, von Wright J, Schneider F, Gries D (1998) Refinement calculus: A systematic introduction. Springer, Berlin
37. Banach R, Poppleton M, Jeske C, Stepney S (2007) Engineering and theoretical underpinnings of retrenchment. Sci Comput Program 67:301-329
38. Sannella D (1999) Algebraic specification and program development by stepwise refinement. In: Proceedings of 9th international workshop on logic programming synthesis and transformation. Venice, Italy, pp 1-9
39. Pons C (2006) Heuristics on the definition of UML refinement patterns. In: Proceedings of 32nd International conference on current trends in theory and practice of computer science, Merin, Czech Republic, pp 461-470
40. Letier E, van Lamsweerde A (2002) Agent-based tactics for goal-oriented requirements elaboration. In: Proceedings of 24th international conference on software engineering. Orlando, USA, pp 83-93
41. Jureta IJ, Faulkner S, Schobbens P-Y (2008) Clear justification of modeling decisions for goal-oriented requirements engineering. Requir Eng 13(2):87-115
42. Balzer R (1991) Tolerating inconsistency. In: Proceedings of 13th international conference on software engineering. Austin, USA, pp 158-165
43. Nuseibeh B, Easterbrook S, Russo A (2001) Making inconsistency respectable in software development. J Syst Softw 58(2):171-180
44. Arieli O, Avron A (1994) Logical bilattices and inconsistent data. In: Proceedings of 9th IEEE annual symposium on logic in computer science. Paris, France, pp 468-476
45. Easterbrook S, Chechik M (2001) A framework for multi-valued reasoning over inconsistent viewpoints. In: Proceedings of 23rd international conference on software engineering. Toronto, Canada, pp 411-420
46. Konieczny S, Marquis P (2002) Three-valued logics for inconsistency handling. In: Proceedings of European Conference on logics in artificial intelligence. Cosenza, Italy, pp 322-344
47. Barragáns-Martínez AB, Pazos-Arias JJ, Fernández-Vilas A, García-Duque J, López-Nores M, Díaz-Redondo RP, Blanco-Fernández Y (2008) On the interplay between inconsistency and incompleteness in multi-perspective requirements specifications. Inf Softw Technol 50(4):296-321
48. Barragáns-Martínez AB, Pazos-Arias JJ, Fernández-Vilas A, García-Duque J, López-Nores M, Díaz-Redondo RP, Blanco-Fernández Y (2008) Composing requirements specifications from multiple prioritized sources. Requir Eng 13(3):187-206