Validating the Functional Design of Embedded Systems against Stakeholder Intentions

Marian Daun, Thorsten Weyer, Klaus Pohl

2014

Abstract

In the embedded systems industry, function-centered engineering is commonly applied to address the increasing number and complexity of system functions. During function-centered engineering, the functional design that is created based on the defined requirements for the system is the main artifact that serves as a basis for subsequent development activities. If stakeholder intentions change and modifications become necessary, they are frequently incorporated directly into the functional design without updating the behavioral requirements accordingly. As a consequence, the correctness of the interplay of system functions as defined in the functional design cannot be assessed by checking it against the defined requirements (since they are outdated) but needs to be checked against the current stakeholder intentions. More precisely, the requirements engineer has to validate the functional design against the stakeholder intentions because he is the expert concerning the stakeholder intentions and can communicate with the stakeholders regarding them, if necessary. However, the requirements engineer is typically not familiar with the functional design and its notation on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the overall behavior of the system is spread across various diagrams in the functional design. Therefore, the requirements engineer needs a more abstract and consolidated view of the functional design in order to be able to validate its correctness with regard to the current stakeholder intentions. In this paper, we present an approach which is based on a specific kind of review model that is automatically generated from the functional design and supports the requirements engineer in her task. The approach that is presented in this paper is subject of ongoing research.

References

  1. Abdelrabi, Z., Cantone, E., Ciolkowski, M. & Rombach, D. (2004), Comparing code reading techniques applied to objectoriented software frameworks with regard to effectiveness and defect detection rate. Proc. of the ISESE, pp. 239-248.
  2. Abi-Antoun, M., Aldrich, J., Nahas, N., Schmerl, B. & Garlan, D. (2008), Differencing and Merging of architectural views. ASE Journal, pp. 35-74.
  3. Alfaro, L. & Henzinger, T. (2001), Interface Automata. Proc. of the ESEC/FSE, pp. 109-120.
  4. Arthur, J., Göner, M., Hayhurst, K. & Holloway, C. (1999), Evaluating the effectiveness of independent verification and validation. IEEE Computer, October pp. 79-83.
  5. Basili, V., Green, S., Lanubile, O., Laitenberger, F., Shull, F., Sorumgard, S. & Zelkowski, M. (1996), The empirical investigation of perspective-based reading. Intl. J. Emp. SW. Eng., pp. 133-164.
  6. Beeck, M. (2007), Development of logical and technical architectures for automotive systems. Software Systems Modelling, pp. 205-219.
  7. Blanc, X., Mounier, I., Mougenot, A. & Mens, T. (2008), Detecting model inconsistency through operationbased model construction. Proc. of ICSE, pp. 511-520.
  8. Boehm, B.& Basili, V. (2001), Software Defect Reduction Top 10 List." IEEE Computer, January, pp. 135-137.
  9. Borges, R., Garcez, A. & Lamb, L. (2010), Integrating Model Verification and Self-Adaptation. Proc. of the ASE, pp. 317-320.
  10. Brinkkemper, S. & Pachidi, S. (2010), Functional Architecture Modeling for the Software Product Industry. Proc. of the ECSA, pp. 198-213.
  11. Broy, M., Gleirscher, M., Merenda, S., Kluge, D., Wild, P., & Krenzer, W. (2009), Toward a Hollistic and Standardized Automotive Architecture Description. IEEE Computer, pp. 98-101.
  12. Clarke, E., Emerson, E. & Sifakis, J. (2009), Model checking: algorthmic verification and debugging. Commun. ACM, pp. 74-84.
  13. Cox, L., Delugach, H. & Skipper, D. (2001), Dependency Analysis Using Conceptual Graphs. Proc. of the ICCS, pp. 117-130.
  14. Damas, C., Lambeau, B., Roucoux, F. & van Lamsweerde, A. (2009), Analyzing Critical Process Models through Behaviour Model Synthesis. Proc. of the ICSE, pp. 441-451.
  15. Fagan, M. (1986), Advances in Software Inspections. TSE, pp. 744-751.
  16. Fradet, P., Le Métayer, D. & Périn, M. (1999), Consisten cy Checking for Multiple View. Proc. of the ESEC/FSE, pp. 410-428.
  17. Gilb, T. & Graham, D. (1993), Software Inspection. Addison-Wesley.
  18. Grundy, J., Hosking, J. & Mugridge, W. (1998), Inconsistency Management for Multiple-View Software Development Environments. TSE, pp. 960-981.
  19. Hélouët, L., & Maigat, P. (2001), Decomposition of Message Sequence Charts. SDL Forum, pp. 348-364.
  20. Holzmann, G. (1997), "The Model Checker SPIN." TSE, May, pp. 279-295.
  21. ITU. (2011), Recommendation Z.120.
  22. Kupferman, O., & Vardi, M. (2001), Model Checking of Safety Properties. Formal Methods in System Design, pp. 291-314.
  23. Larsen, K. (1993), Efficient Local Correctness Checking. Computer Aided Verification, pp. 30-43.
  24. Leveson, N. (1995), Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Addison Wesley, Reading.
  25. Margaria, T., & Steffen, B. (2009), Continuous ModelDriven Engineering. IEEE Comp., Oct., pp. 106-109.
  26. Mauw, S., & Reniers, M. (1999), Operational Semantics for MSC'96. Journal of Computer Networks, June pp. 1785-1799.
  27. Milicev, D. (2002), Automatic Model Transformations Using Extended UML Object Diagrams in Modeling Environments. TSE, April, pp. 413-431.
  28. Porter, A., Votta, L. & Basili, V. (1995), Comparing Detection Methods for Software Requirement Inspection: a Replicated Experiment. TSE, June pp. 563-575.
  29. Pretschner, A., Broy, M., Kruger, I. & Stauner, T. (2007), Software Engineering for Automotive Systems: A Roadmap. Proc. of FOSE, pp. 55-71.
  30. Sabetzadeh, M. & Easterbrook, S. (2006), View merging in the presence of incompleteness and inconsistency. RE Journal, pp. 174-193.
  31. Shull, F. et al. (2002), "What we have learned about fighting defects." Proc. of the Intl. Conf. SW Metrics, pp. 133-154.
  32. Uchitel, S., Brunet, G. & Chechik, M. (2009), Synthesis of Partial Behavior Models from Properties and Scenarios. TSE, May/June pp. 384-406.
  33. Uchitel, S., Kramer, J. & Magee, J. (2001), Detecting Implied Scenarios in Message Sequence Chart Specifications. Proc. of the ESEC/FSE, pp. 74-82.
  34. Weber, M. & Weisbrod, J. (2002), "Requirements Engineering in Automotive Development - Experiences and Challenges." Proc. of the RE.
  35. Whittle, J. & Jayaraman, P. (2010), "Synthesizing Hierarchical State Machines from Expressive Scenario Descriptions." TOSEM, January, pp. 8:1-8:45.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Daun M., Weyer T. and Pohl K. (2014). Validating the Functional Design of Embedded Systems against Stakeholder Intentions . In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD, ISBN 978-989-758-007-9, pages 333-339. DOI: 10.5220/0004713103330339


in Bibtex Style

@conference{modelsward14,
author={Marian Daun and Thorsten Weyer and Klaus Pohl},
title={Validating the Functional Design of Embedded Systems against Stakeholder Intentions},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,},
year={2014},
pages={333-339},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0004713103330339},
isbn={978-989-758-007-9},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development - Volume 1: MODELSWARD,
TI - Validating the Functional Design of Embedded Systems against Stakeholder Intentions
SN - 978-989-758-007-9
AU - Daun M.
AU - Weyer T.
AU - Pohl K.
PY - 2014
SP - 333
EP - 339
DO - 10.5220/0004713103330339