Synthesizing hierarchical state machines from expressive scenario descriptions

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2010, Pages

  Whittle, Jon ^a   Jayaraman, Praveen K ^b  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study   (United States)

Author keywords

Interaction overview diagrams; Scenario based requirements; Software modeling; State machine synthesis

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL DESIGN MODELS; DESIGN STEPS; EXTENDED VERSIONS; FORMAL SEMANTICS; HIERARCHICAL STATE MACHINES; PLUG-INS; PRACTICAL SYSTEMS; SCENARIO DESCRIPTION; SOFTWARE MODELING; STATE MACHINE; SYNTHESIS ALGORITHMS;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; CONTOUR FOLLOWERS; FORMAL LOGIC; FORMAL METHODS; GRAPHIC METHODS; MACHINE DESIGN; OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING; SEMANTICS;

SYNTHESIS (CHEMICAL);

EID: 76149111133     PISSN: 1049331X     EISSN: 15577392     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1656250.1656252     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. ALEXANDER, I. 2005. Scenario plus use case toolkit. http://www. scenarioplus.org.uk/.
2. ALEXANDER, I. AND MAIDEN, N. 2004. Scenarios, Stories, Use Cases through the Systems Development Life-Cycle. John Wiley, New York, NY.
3. AMYOT, D.ANDEBERLEIN,A. 2003. Anevaluationofscenario notations and constructionapproaches for telecommunication systems development. Telecomm. Syst. J. 24, 1, 61-94.
4. AMYOT, D., LOGRIPPO, L., BUHR, R. J. A., AND GRAY, T. 1999. Use case maps for the capture and validation of distributed systems requirements. In Proceedings of the Conference on Requirements Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 44-53.
5. BORDELEAU, F. AND CORRIVEAU, J.-P. 2001. On the importance of inter-scenario relationships in hierarchical state machine design. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering. 156-170.
6. CASTELLO, R., MILI, R., AND TOLLIS, I. G. 2002. Automatic layout of statecharts. Softw. Pract. Exper. 32, 1, 25-55.
7. CHAUVEL, F.ANDJEZEQUEL, J.-M. 2005. Code generation from UML models with semantic variation points. In Proceedings of the Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS). Springer, Berlin, Germany, 54-68.
8. COMBES, P., HAREL, D., AND KUGLER, H. 2005. Modeling and verification of a telecommunication application using live sequence charts and the play-engine tool. In Proceedings of the ATVA. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 414-428.
9. DAMAS, C., LAMBEAU, B., DUPONT, P., AND VAN LAMSWEERDE, A. 2005. Generating annotated behavior models from end-user scenarios. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 31, 12, 1056-1073.
10. DAMAS, C., LAMBEAU, B., AND VAN LAMSWEERDE, A. 2006. Scenarios, goals and state machines: a win-win partnership for model synthesis. In Proceedings of the SIGSOFT FSE. 197-207.
11. DENERY, D., ERZBERGER, H., DAVIS, T., GREEN, S., AND MCNALLY, B. D. 1997. Challenges of air traffic management research: analysis, simulation, and field test. In Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference. AIAA, Reston, VA.
12. GOTTESDIENER, E. 2004. Running a use case/scenario workshop. In Scenarios, Stories and Use Cases, I. Alexander and N. Maiden, Eds. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 81-101.
13. GROSU, R. AND SMOLKA, S. 2005. Safety-liveness semantics for UML 2.0 sequence diagrams. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 6-14.
14. HAREL, D., KUGLER, H., AND PNUELI, A. 2005. Synthesis revisited: generating statechart models from scenario-based requirements. In Proceedings of the Conference on Formal Methods in Software and Systems Modeling. 309-324.
15. HAREL, D. AND YASHCHIN, G. 2000. An algorithm for blob hierarchy layout. In Proceedings of the Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. 29-40
16. HAUGEN, Ø., HUSA, K. E., RUNDE, R. K., AND STøLEN, K. 2005. STAIRS: Towards formal design with sequence diagrams. J. Softw. Syst. Model. 4, 355-367.
17. IBM. 2008. Rational software modeler. http://www.ibm.com.
18. ISODA, S. 2004. On UML2.0's abandonment of the actors-call-use-cases conjecture. J. Obj. Tech. 4, 69-80
19. ITU. 2004. Recommendation Z.120: Message sequence chart. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland
20. JACOBSON, I., CHRISTERSON, M., JONSSON, P., AND OVERGAARD, G. 1992. Object Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading, MA.
21. JAYARAMAN, P. AND WHITTLE, J. 2007. UCSIM: A tool for simulating use case scenarios. In Companion to the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 43-44. (Pubitemid 47430733)
22. KOSKINEN, J., MÄKINEN, E., AND SYSTÄ, T. 2002. Implementing a component-based tool for interactive synthesis of UML statechart diagrams. Acta Cybernet. 15, 4, 547-565.
23. KRAHN, H. AND RUMPE, B. 2006. Techniques for lightweight generator refactoring. In Proceedings of the Conference on Generative and Transformational Techniques in Software Engineering. 437-446.
24. KRUCHTEN, P. 2004. An Introduction to the Rational Unified Process. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading, MA.
25. KRÜGER, I. 2003. Capturing overlapping, triggered and preemptive collaborations using MSCs. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE). 387-402.
26. KRÜGER, I. 2000. Distributed system design with message sequence charts. Technische Univer-sität München, Munrich, Germany.
27. MAIDEN, N. A. M., MINOCHA, S., MANNING, K., AND RYAN, M. 1998. CREWS-SAVRE: Systematic scenario generation and use. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Requirements Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 148-155.
28. MÄKINEN, E. AND SYSTÄ, T. 2002. Minimally adequate teacher synthesizes statechart diagrams. Acta Informat. 38, 235-239
29. OMG. 2007. Unified modeling language 2.1.1 specification (05-07-04). http://www.omg.org.
30. OVERGAARD, G. AND PALMKVIST, K. 1999. A formal approach to use cases and their relationships In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on The Unified Modeling Language (UML'98). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 406-418.
31. PADERBORN. 2005. Shuttle System case study. Software Engineering Group, University of Pader-born. http://www.cs.uni-paderborn.de/cs/ag-schaefer/ CaseStudies/ShuttleSystem/.
32. POTTS, C., TAKAHASHI, K., AND ANTÓN, A.I. 1994. Inquiry-based requirements analysis. IEEE Softw. 11, 21-32.
33. SAIEDIAN, H., KUMARAKULASINGAM, P., AND ANAN, M. 2005. Scenario-based requirements analysis techniques for real-time software systems: A comparative evaluation. Require. Eng. 10, 1, 22-33.
34. SMIALEK, M. 2004. Accommodating informality with necessary precision in use case scenarios. J. Obj. Tech. 4, 59-67.
35. SOMÉ, S. 2005. Use case based requirements validation with scenarios. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Requirements Engineering. 465-466.
36. STEVENS, P. 2001. On use cases and their relationships in the unified modelling language. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE'01). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 140-155.
37. STÖRRLE, H. 2005. Semantics and verification of data flow in UML 2.0 activities. Electronic Notes Theoret. Comput. Sci. 127, 4, 35-52.
38. STÖRRLE, H. AND HAUSMANN, J. H. 2005. Towards a formal semantics of UML2.0 activities. In Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering. 117-128.
39. UCHITEL, S., KRAMER, J., AND MAGEE, J. 2003a. Behavior model elaboration using partial labelled transition systems. In Proceedings of ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE. 19-27.
40. UCHITEL, S., KRAMER, J., AND MAGEE, J. 2001. Detecting implied scenarios in message sequence chart specifications. In Proceedings of ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE. 74-82.
41. UCHITEL, S., KRAMER, J., AND MAGEE, J. 2004. Incremental elaboration of scenario-based specifications and behavior models using implied scenarios. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 13, 37-85.
42. UCHITEL, S., KRAMER, J., AND MAGEE, J. 2002. Negative scenarios for implied scenario elicitation. In Proceedings of SIGSOFT FSE. 109-118.
43. UCHITEL, S., KRAMER, J., AND MAGEE, J. 2003b. Synthesis of behavorial models from scenarios. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 29, 99-115.
44. WEIDENHAUPT, K., POHL, K., JARKE, M., AND HAUMER, P. 1998. Scenarios in system development: Current practice. IEEE Softw. 15, 2, 34-45.
45. WHITTLE, J. 2005. Specifying precise use cases with use case charts. In MoDELS Satellite Events (Revised Selected Papers). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. 290-301.
46. WHITTLE, J. 2007. Precise specification of use case scenarios. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE). Springer, Berlin, Germany. 170-184. (Pubitemid 350262650)
47. WHITTLE, J. AND JAYA RAMA N, P. 2006. Generating hierarchical finite state machines from use case charts. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 16-25.
48. WHITTLE, J., JOY, C., AND KRÜGER, I. 2005a. Generating simulation and test models from scenarios. In Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Software Quality. 41-53.
49. WHITTLE, J., JOY, C., AND KRÜGER, I. 2006. Supporting model-based testing with scenarios and state machines. Softw. Qual. Prof. 8, 17-28.
50. WHITTLE, J., KWAN, R., AND SABOO, J. 2005b. From scenarios to code: An air traffic control case study. Softw. Syst. Model. 4, 71-93.
51. WHITTLE, J. AND SCHUMANN, J. 2000. Generating statechart designs from scenarios. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM Press, New York, NY, 314-323.
52. WILLIAMS, C. 2004. Towards engineered, useful use cases. J. Obj. Techn. 4, 45-57.
53. ZACHOS, K. AND MAIDEN, N. A. M. 2004. ART-SCENE: Enhancing scenario walkthroughs with multi-media scenarios. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Requirements Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 360-361.