Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Automotive behavioral requirements expressed in a specification pattern system: a case study at BOSCH

  • REFSQ 2011
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To allow an automatic formal analysis of requirements, the requirements have to be formalized first. However, logical formalisms are seldom accessible to stakeholders in the automotive context. Konrad and Cheng proposed a specification pattern system (SPS) represented in a restricted English grammar that can be automatically translated to logics, but looks like natural language. In this paper, we investigate whether this SPS can be applied to automotive requirements of BOSCH, in the sense that it is expressive enough to specify automotive behavioral requirements of BOSCH. We did a case study over 289 informal behavioral requirements taken from automotive BOSCH projects. We evaluated whether these requirements could be formulated in the SPS and whether the SPS has to be adapted to the automotive context. The case study strongly indicates that the SPS, extended with 3 further patterns, is suited to specify automotive behavioral requirements at BOSCH.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Platform projects develop a collection of reusable artifacts, such as requirements, software components, test plans, etc. These artifacts are then reused in customer projects in order to build applications.

References

  1. Konrad S, Cheng BHC (2005) Real-time specification patterns. In: ICSE ’05: Proceedings 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, New York, ACM, pp 372–381

  2. Emerson EA (1990) Temporal and modal logic. In: Handbook of theoretical computer science. Volume B. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 995–1072

  3. Ramakrishna YS, Melliar-Smith PM, Moser LE, Dillon LK, Kutty G (1996) Interval logics and their decision procedures. TCS 170(1–2):1–46

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Alur R (1992) Techniques for automatic verification of real-time systems. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford

  5. Moser LE, Ramakrishna YS, Kutty G, Melliar-Smith PM, Dillon LK (1997) A graphical environment for the design of concurrent real-time systems. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 6(1):31–79

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Davis AM (1993) Software requirements: objects, functions, and states. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Heumesser N, Houdek F (2004) Experiences in managing an automotive requirements engineering process. In: RE, IEEE Computer Society, pp 322–327

  8. Walia GS, Carver JC (2009) A systematic literature review to identify and classify software requirement errors. Inf Softw Technol 51(7):1087–1109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dahlstedt AG, Persson A (2003) Requirements interdependencies—moulding the state of research into a research agenda. In: REFSQ, pp 71–80

  10. Heimdahl MPE, Leveson NG (1995) Completeness and consistency analysis of state-based requirements. In: IEEE Transaction on SW Engineering, pp 3–14

  11. Heitmeyer CL, Jeffords RD, Labaw BG (1996) Automated consistency checking of requirements specifications. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 5(3):231–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yu L, Su S, Luo S, Su Y (2008) Completeness and consistency analysis on requirements of distributed event-driven systems. In: TASE, Washington, pp 241–244

  13. ISO26262 (2010) Road vehicles—functional safety, Part 8, Baseline 17

  14. Hall A (2007) Realising the benefits of formal methods. J Univers Comput Sci (JUCS) 13(5):669–678

    Google Scholar 

  15. Post A, Menzel I, Podelski A (2011) Applying restricted english grammar on automotive requirements: does it work? A case study. In: Proceedings of the 17th international working conference on Requirements engineering: foundation for software quality. REFSQ’11, Springer, Berlin, pp 166–180

  16. Dwyer MB, Avrunin GS, Corbett JC (1999) Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: ICSE, ACM, New York, pp 411–420

  17. Abrial JR (2006) Formal methods in industry: achievements, problems, future. In: ICSE, ACM, New York, pp 761–768

  18. Kuhn T (2007) Acerules: Executing rules in controlled natural language. In: International conference on web reasoning and rule systems. Springer, Berlin

  19. Han B, Gates D, Levin L (2006) From language to time: a temporal expression anchorer. TIME, pp 196–203

  20. Konrad S (October 2006) Model-driven development and analysis of high assurance systems. PhD thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing

  21. Grunske L (2008) Specification patterns for probabilistic quality properties. In: ICSE, ACM, New York, pp 31–40

  22. Cobleigh RL, Avrunin GS, Clarke LA (2006) User guidance for creating precise and accessible property specifications. In: FSE, ACM, New York, pp 208–218

  23. Rupp C (2004) Requirements Engineering und Management—Professionelle, iterative Anforderungsanalyse für die Praxis. Carl Hanser Verlag, Mnchen

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mavin A, Wilkinson P (2010) Big ears (the return of “easy approach to requirements engineering”). In: RE’10. 277–282

  25. Pohl K, Böckle G, Linden FJvd (2005) Software product line engineering: foundations, principles and techniques. Springer, USA

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Sibay G, Uchitel S, Braberman V (2008) Existential live sequence charts revisited. In: International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE ’08, ACM, New York, pp 41–50

  27. Behrmann G, David A, Larsen KG (2004) A tutorial on uppaal, pp 200–236

  28. Cimatti A, Clarke E, Giunchiglia E, Giunchiglia F, Pistore M, Roveri M, Sebastiani R, Tacchella A (2002) NuSMV: an opensource tool for symbolic model checking. In: CAV. Vol 2404 of LNCS., Springer, Copenhagen

  29. Dwyer M, Avrunin G, Corbett J (1997) A system of specification patterns. http://patterns.projects.cis.ksu.edu/

  30. Houdek F (2003) Requirements Engineering Erfahrungen in Projekten der Automobilindustrie. Softwaretechnik-Trends 23(1)

  31. Neuendorf KA (2002) Content analysis guidebook. Sage Publications, Thoushand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  32. Krippendorff KH (2003) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Inc., Thoushand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlsson MC, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2000) Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction. Kluwer, Norwell

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Post A, Hoenicke J, Podelski A (2011) rt-inconsistency: a new property for real-time requirements. In: Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering. FASE’11/ETAPS’11, Springer, Berlin, pp 34–49

  35. Post A, Hoenicke J, Podelski A (2011) Vacuous real-time requirements. In: International conference on requirements engineering. RE2011. Springer, Berlin

  36. Hayes JH (2003) Building a requirement fault taxonomy: Experiences from a nasa verification and validation research project. In: ISSRE ’03: proceedings of the 14th international symposium on software reliability engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 49

  37. Kwiatkowska M, Norman G, Parker D(2011) PRISM 4.0: Verification of probabilistic real-time systems. In: Gopalakrishnan G, Qadeer S (eds), Proceedings 23rd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’11). Vol. 6806 of LNCS, Springer, Berlin, pp 585–591

  38. Teige T, Eggers A, Fränzle M (2011) Constraint-based analysis of concurrent probabilistic hybrid systems: an application to networked automation systems. Nonlinear Anal: Hybrid Syst 5(2):343–366

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Gilb T (1989) A planning language (a Planguage). In: Conference proceedings on APL as a tool of thought. ACM, New york, pp 169–177. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/75144.75168

  40. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3):319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Robert Bosch GmbH, Corporate Research, Stuttgart, Germany

    Amalinda Post & Igor Menzel

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Jochen Hoenicke & Andreas Podelski

Authors
  1. Amalinda Post
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Igor Menzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jochen Hoenicke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andreas Podelski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amalinda Post.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Post, A., Menzel, I., Hoenicke, J. et al. Automotive behavioral requirements expressed in a specification pattern system: a case study at BOSCH. Requirements Eng 17, 19–33 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-011-0145-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-011-0145-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation