Modeling Requirements Should be Language Agnostic! - Example of a Formal Definition of Simple Behavioral Decomposition Models

Gurvan Le Guernic, Gurvan Le Guernic

Abstract

This paper argues in favor of expressing modeling requirements in a modeling language agnostic way, at least whenever those requirements are part of a contracting relationship between some of the stakeholders. Contracting authorities may require from contractors specific design models in order to perform early design (functional, safety, security, etc.) analyses. However, in order to allow contractors to use the compatible modeling language of their choice with the compatible modeling guidelines of their choice, the formal definition of the model requirements must be independent from any concrete modeling language or guideline. This paper introduces, based on the example of Behavioral Decomposition Models, an approach to express such agnostic requirements. This is achieved by defining a semantic domain, some correctness constraints and, later, the necessary mappings between them and the desired concrete syntaxes.

References

  1. Abrial, J.-R. (2010). Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press.
  2. Alexander, I. F. and Maiden, N. (2004). Scenarios, Stories, Use Cases: Through the Systems Development LifeCycle. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1st edition.
  3. Cockburn, A. (2007). Agile Software Development: The Cooperative Game. Pearson Education, 2nd edition.
  4. Debbabi, M., Hassaïne, F., Jarraya, Y., Soeanu, A., and Alawneh, L. (2010). Verification and Validation in Systems Engineering: Assessing UML/SysML Design Models. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1st edition.
  5. Forsberg, K. and Mooz, H. (1998). System Engineering for Faster, Cheaper, Better. INCOSE International Symposium, 8(1):917-927.
  6. Gérard, S., Dumoulin, C., Tessier, P., and Selic, B. (2010). Papyrus: A UML2 Tool for Domain-specific Language Modeling. In Proc. 2007 Model-based Engineering of Embedded Real-time Systems, volume 6100 of LNCS, pages 361-368. Springer.
  7. INCOSE, editor (2015). Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities. John Wiley and Sons, 4th edition.
  8. ISO (2011). Systems and software engineering - Life cycle processes -Requirements engineering. Standard ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2011(E), International Organization for Standardization.
  9. ISTQB Glossary Working Group (2015). Standard Glossary of Terms Used in Software Testing. Technical report, International Software Testing Qualifications Board. Version 3.01.
  10. Kang, M. H., Moskowitz, I. S., and Chincheck, S. (2005). The Pump: A Decade of Covert Fun. In Proc. Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, pages 352-360. IEEE Computer Society.
  11. Kolovos, D. S., Paige, R. F., and Polack, F. A. C. (2009). On the Evolution of OCL for Capturing Structural Constraints in Modelling Languages. volume 5115 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 204-218.
  12. Luoma, J., Kelly, S., and Tolvanen, J.-P. (2004). Defining Domain-Specific Modeling Languages: Collected Experiences. In Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling.
  13. Mcconnell, S. (1996). Daily Build and Smoke Test. IEEE Software, 13(04):144,143.
  14. Moore, A. P. (2000). Network Pump (NP) Security Target. Common Criteria's Security Target NRL/MR/5540- 00-8459, Naval Research Laboratory.
  15. OMG (2012a). Object Constraint Language (OCL). Standard ISO/IEC 19507:2012(E), International Organization for Standardization. Version 2.3.1.
  16. OMG (2012b). OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysMLTM). Standard, Object Management Group. Version 1.3.
  17. Pierce, B. C. (2002). Types and Programming Languages. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  18. Shamieh, C. (2014). Continuous Engineering For Dummies R . IBM Limited Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  19. The Eclipse Foundation (2015). Papyrus. https://eclipse.org/papyrus/. [Online; accessed 9-December-2015].
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Le Guernic G. (2016). Modeling Requirements Should be Language Agnostic! - Example of a Formal Definition of Simple Behavioral Decomposition Models . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD, ISBN 978-989-758-168-7, pages 555-562. DOI: 10.5220/0005795205550562


in Bibtex Style

@conference{modelsward16,
author={Gurvan Le Guernic},
title={Modeling Requirements Should be Language Agnostic! - Example of a Formal Definition of Simple Behavioral Decomposition Models},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,},
year={2016},
pages={555-562},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005795205550562},
isbn={978-989-758-168-7},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,
TI - Modeling Requirements Should be Language Agnostic! - Example of a Formal Definition of Simple Behavioral Decomposition Models
SN - 978-989-758-168-7
AU - Le Guernic G.
PY - 2016
SP - 555
EP - 562
DO - 10.5220/0005795205550562