A comparison of techniques for the specification of external system behavior

ABSTRACT

The elimination of ambiguity, inconsistency, and incompleteness in a Software Requirements Specification (SRS) document is inherently difficult, due to the use of natural language. The focus here is a survey of available techniques designed to reduce these negatives in the documentation of a software product's external behavior.

REFERENCES

• 1: Agerwala, T. Putting Petri-nets to work. IEEE Comput. 12. 12 (Dec. 1979), 85-94.
• 2: Alford, M. A requirements engineering methodology br real-time processing requirements. IEEE Trans. Soflw. EnR. 3. 1 (Jan. 1977). 60-69.
• 3: Alford. M. SREM at the age of eight; The distributed design system. IEEE Comput, 18. 4 (Apr. 1985), 36-46.
• 4: Alford. M., and Burns. t. R-nets: A graph model for real-time software requirements. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Computer Software Engineering. Polytechnic Press. New Ynrk. 1976, pp. 97-108,
• 5: Victor R. Basili , David M. Weiss, Evaluation of a software requirements document by analysis of change data, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Software engineering, p.314-323, March 09-12, 1981, San Diego, California, United States
• 6: Bell, T.. and Bixler. D. A flow oriented requirements statement language. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Computer Software Engineering. Polytechnic Press, New York. 1976, pp. 109-122.
• 7: E.F. Berliner , P. Zave, An experiment in technology transfer: PAISLey specification of requirements for an undersea lightwave cable system, Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Engineering, p.42-50, March 1987, Monterey, California, United States
• 8: Valdis Berzins , Michael Gray, Analysis and design in MSG.84: formalizing functional specifications, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.11 n.8, p.657-670, Aug. 1985 [doi>10.1109/TSE.1985.232516]
• 9: Boehm. B. Software engineering. IEEE Trans. Comput. 25. 12 (Dec. 1976). 1226-1241.
• 10: B. W. Boehm , R. K. McClean , D. B. Urfrig, Some experience with automated aids to the design of large-scale reliable software, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.10 n.6, p.105-113, June 1975
• 11: Buhrke. R.. at al, Design choices for a large PCM switch with multiprocessor control. In Proceedings uf the International Switching Symposium (May 1979).
• 12: Caine. S.. and Gordon. E. PDL--A tool for software design. In Proceedings of the AFIPS National Computer Conference, Vol. 44 (Anaheim, CA. 1975). AFIPS Press, Montvale. New Jersey. pp. 271-276.
• 13: Casey, B.. and Taylor, B. Writing requirements in English: A natural alternative. In Proceedings of the IEEE Software Engineering Standards Workshop (San Francisco, California, August), IEEE Press, Wash., D.C., 1981. pp. 95-101.
• 14: Joe Celko , John S. Davis , John Mitchell, A demonstration of three requirements language systems, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.18 n.1, p.9-14, January 1983 [doi>10.1145/948093.948094]
• 15: Chandrasekharan. M., et al. Requirements-based testing of real-time systems: Modeling for testability. IEEE Comput. 18. 4 (Apr. 1985). 71-80.
• 16: Robert N. Charette, Software engineering environments: concepts and technology, Intertext Publications, Inc.,/McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1986
• 17: Chvalovsky, V. Decision tables. Soflw, Pract. Exper. 13 (1983), 423-429.
• 18: Daly. E. Management of software development. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 3, 3 (May 1977), 230-242.
• 19: Dasarathy, B. Test plan generation for the requirements validation of real-time systems, In Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Automatic Test Program Generation (Philadelphia, PA. April). IEEE Press. Wash., D.C., 1986.
• 20: Alan M. Davis , Walter J. Rataj, Requirements language processing for the effective testing of real-time systems, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, v.3 n.5, p.61-66, November 1978
• 21: Davis, A. Automating the requirements phase: Benefits to later phases of the software life-cycle. In Proceedings of IEEE COMPSAC "80 (Chicago. Ill.. October 27-31), pp. 42-48, IEEE Press. Wash.. D.C., 1980.
• 22: Alan M. Davis, Rapid prototyping using executable requirements specifications, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, v.7 n.5, p.39-44, December 1982
• 23: Davis, A. The design of a family of applications-oriented requirements languages. IEEE Comput. 15. 5 (May 1982), 21-28.
• 24: Davis, A. The role of requirements in the software synthesis of realtime systems. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Current Issues in Requirements Engineering Environments (Kyoto, Japan, Sept. 20-21) North-Holland. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 1982. pp. 151-158.
• 25: Alan M. Davis, A taxonomy for the early stages of the software development life cycle, Journal of Systems and Software, v.8 n.4, p.297-311, September 1988 [doi>10.1016/0164-1212(88)90013-1]
• 26: Davis. A. el al. RLP: An automated tool for the processing of requirements. In Proceedings of IEEE COMPSAC '79 (Chicago, Ill., November fi-8)), pp. 289-299, IEEE Press, Wash., D,C, 1979,
• 27: Davis, A,. and Rauscher, T. Formal techniques and automatic processing to ensure correctness in requirements specifications. In Proceedings of the IEEE Specifications of Reliable Software Conference (Cambridge. Mass.. April). pp. 15-35, IEEE Press, Wash., D,C.. 1979.
• 28: Davis. C., and Vick. C. The software developmenl system. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 3. I (Jan. 1977), 89-84.
• 29: Tom DeMarco, Structured Analysis and System Specification, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1979
• 30: Fagan. M. Design and code inspections and process control in the development of programs. IBM Report IBM-SDD-TR-21.572, Dec, 1974, lBM. Bethesda, Maryland.
• 31: Furia. N. A comparative evaluation of RSL/REVS and PSL/PSA applied to a digital flight control system. In Proceedings of the AIAA 2nd Computers in Aerospace Conference, pp. 330-337. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, New York, NY, 1979.
• 32: Glaseman. S., and Davis. M. Software requirements for embedded computers: A preliminary report. U,S. Air Force Document R-2567- AF. Mar. 1980.
• 33: David Harel, Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems, Science of Computer Programming, v.8 n.3, p.231-274, June 1, 1987 [doi>10.1016/0167-6423(87)90035-9]
• 34: D. Harel , H. Lachover , A. Naamad , A. Pnueli , M. Politi , R. Sherman , a. Shtul-Trauring, Statemate: a working environment for the development of complex reactive systems, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Software engineering, p.396-406, April 11-15, 1988, Singapore
• 35: Harley, D. The use of structured methods in the development of large software-based avionics systems. In Proceedings of the AIAA/ IEEE 6th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (Baltimore. MD). pp, 6-15, IEEE Press, Wash., D.C., 1984.
• 36: Heninger, K. Specifying software requirements for complex systems: New techniques and their application. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 6. 1 (Jan. 1980), 2-13.
• 37: tEEE A guide for software requirements specifications. IEEE/ANSI Standard 839-1984. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. New York, 1984.
• 38: Kawashima, H. et al. Functional specification of call processing by slate transition diagram. IEEE Trans. Commun. 19. 5 (Oct. 1971), 581-587.
• 39: Pentti Kerola , Peter Freeman, A comparison of lifecycle models, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Software engineering, p.90-99, March 09-12, 1981, San Diego, California, United States
• 40: Miller, T.. and Taylor, B. A system requirements methodology. In Proceedings of the IEEE Electro '81 Conference (New York, Apr.), pp. 18.5.1-18.5.5, IEEE Press, Wash., D.C. 1981.
• 41: Bernard M. E. Moret, Decision Trees and Diagrams, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.14 n.4, p.593-623, Dec. 1982 [doi>10.1145/356893.356898]
• 42: Patil, S. Coordination of asynchronous events. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1970.
• 43: James L. Peterson, Petri Nets, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.9 n.3, p.223-252, Sept. 1977 [doi>10.1145/356698.356702]
• 44: Petri, C. Kommunikation mit automation. Schriflen des Reinsch- Westfalischen Inst. fur Instrumentelle Mathematik an der Universitat Bonn. Boon. West Germany. 1962.
• 45: R S Pressman, Software engineering: a practitioner's approach (2nd ed.), McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1986
• 46: Rockstrom, A.. and Saracco, R. SDL--CCITT specification and description language. IEEE Trans. Commun. 30, 6 (June 1982), 1310-1318.
• 47: Roman, G.-C.. et al. A total system design framework. IEEE Comput. 17, 5 (May 1984), 15-26,
• 48: W. W. Royce, Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques, Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Engineering, p.328-338, March 1987, Monterey, California, United States
• 49: Searle, L. An air force guide to the system specification. U.S. Air Force Document TM-5772/010/00. Jan. 1981.
• 50: STATEMATEI: The STATEMATEI Working Environment for System Development. AD CAD. Inc.. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1985.
• 51: Sunshine. C, f:ormal methods for communication protocol specificalion and verification. ARPA Order 346(')/3681. Nov, 1979.
• 52: Tavh)r, B. A method for expressing functional requirements of reallime syslems, In Proceedings of the IFAC/IFIP Workshop on Real-Time Programming (I.eibnitz, Austria, April), Pergamon Press. New York. 1,980.
• 53: Wang, Y. A distributed specification model amt its prototyping, In Proceedings of IEEE COMPSAC '86 (Chicago. Ill.. October 8-t0). pp. 130-137, IEEE Press, Wash,. D.C., 1986
• 54: P T Ward, The transformation schema: An extension of the data flow diagram to represent control and timing, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.12 n.2, p.198-210, Feb. 1986
• 55: Anthony I. Wasserman, User Software Engineering and the design of interactive systems, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Software engineering, p.387-393, March 09-12, 1981, San Diego, California, United States
• 56: Anthony I. Wasserman, Extending state transition diagrams for the specification of human-computer interaction, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.11 n.8, p.699-713, Aug. 1985 [doi>10.1109/TSE.1985.232519]
• 57: A I Wasserman , P A Pircher , D T Shewmake , M L Kersten, Developing interactive information systems with the user software engineering methodology, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.12 n.2, p.326-345, Feb. 1986
• 58: Whirls, V.. and Chiang. W. A state machine development method for call processing software. In Proceedings of the IEEE Electro 81 (Apr,) IEEE Press, Wash,, D.C., 1981.
• 59: Yoeli, M., and Barzilai. Z. Behavioural descriptions of communication switching systems using extended Petri-nets. Digital Processes 3, 4 (1977), 307-320.
• 60: Zave, P. An operational approach to requirements specification for embedded systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 8, 3 (May 1982), 250-269.
• 61: P Zave , W Schell, Salient features of and executable specification language and its environment, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.12 n.2, p.312-325, Feb. 1986
• 62: Pamela Zave , Raymond T. Yeh, Executable requirements for embedded systems, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Software engineering, p.295-304, March 09-12, 1981, San Diego, California, United States

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.3 PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES

General Terms:
Design, Documentation, Languages