Comparing safety analysis based on sequence diagrams and textual use cases

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

Volumn 6051 LNCS, Issue , 2010, Pages 165-179

  Stålhane, Tor ^a   Sindre, Guttorm ^a   Du Bousquet, Lydie ^b  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^b UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES   (France)

Author keywords

Experiment; Misuse cases; Safety analysis; Sequence diagrams

Indexed keywords

MISUSE CASES; POTENTIAL HAZARDS; SAFETY ANALYSIS; SEQUENCE DIAGRAMS; SPECIFICATION TECHNIQUE;

EMBEDDED SYSTEMS; EXPERIMENTS; HAZARDS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; SECURITY SYSTEMS; SYSTEMS ENGINEERING;

GRAPHIC METHODS;

EID: 79956141637     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-13094-6_14     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Gershenfeld, N., Krikorian, R., Cohen, D.: The Internet of Things. Scientific American 291(44), 76-81 (2004).
2. Batra, D., Hoffer, J.A., Bostrom, R.P.: Comparing Representations with Relational and EER Models. Communications of the ACM 33, 126-139 (1990). (Pubitemid 20657220)
3. 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. 242-260. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).
4. Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11 (1987).
5. 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). (Pubitemid 128742307)
6. Allmendinger, L.: Diagrams and Design Tools in Context. ACM SIGDOC Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation 18, 25-41 (1994).
7. Coll, R.A., Coll, J.H., Thakur, G.: Graphs and tables: a four factor experiment. Communications of the ACM 37, 77-84 (1994).
8. Guiochet, J., Vilchis, A.: Safety Analysis of a Medical Robot for Tele-echography.
9. Long, Z., Jinglun, Z.: Analysis and Study of System Safety Based on Event Sequence Diagram. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security 8(2) (February 2008).
10. Ren, C.: A Safety Inspection Management System for Mine equipment Based on UML. In: 2009 International Conference on Signal Processing Systems (2009).
11. Allenby, K., Kelly, T.: Deriving Safety Requirements Using Scenarios. In: Proc. RE 2001, Toronto, Canada, August 27-31. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2001).
12. Alspaugh, T.A., et al.: Clarity for Stakeholders: Empirical Evaluation of ScenarioML, Use cases and Sequence Diagrams. In: Fifth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (2007).
13. Sindre, G., Opdahl, A.L.: Eliciting Security Requirements with Misuse Cases. Requirements Engineering 10, 34-44 (2005).
14. Alexander, I.F.: Misuse Cases, Use Cases with Hostile Intent. IEEE Software 20, 58-66 (2003).
15. Larman, C.: Applying UML and Patterns - An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development, 3rd edn. Pearson Education Inc., London, ISBN 0- 13-148906-2.
16. Pender, T.: UML Bible, Wiley Publishing Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana, US (2003), ISBN 0- 7645-2604-9.
17. Stålhane, T., Sindre, G.: A comparison of two approaches to safety analysis based on use cases. In: Parent, C., Schewe, K.-D., Storey, V.C., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER 2007. LNCS, vol. 4801, pp. 423-437. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).
18. Stålhane, T., Sindre, G.: Safety Hazard Identification by Misuse Cases: Experimental Comparison of Text and Diagrams. In: Czarnecki, K., Ober, I., Bruel, J.-M., Uhl, A., Völter, M. (eds.) MODELS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5301, pp. 721-735. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).
19. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic, Norwell (2000).
20. Tukey, J.W.: Data analysis and behavioral science or learning to bear the quantitative 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).
21. Achour, C.B., et al.: Guiding Use Case Authoring: Results of an Empirical Study. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering - RE 1999, Limerick, Ireland (1999).
22. Cox, K., Phalp, K.: Replicating the CREWS use case Authoring Guidelines Experiment. Empirical Software Engineering 5, 245-267 (2000). (Pubitemid 32085484)