Jean-Michel Bruel
Manuel Mazzara
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
A major determinant of the quality of software systems is the quality of their requirements, which should be both understandable and precise. Most requirements are written in natural language, which is good for understandability but lacks precision.
To make requirements precise, researchers have for years advocated the use of mathematics-based notations and methods, known as “formal.” Many exist, differing in their style, scope, and applicability. The present survey discusses some of the main formal approaches and compares them to informal methods.
The analysis uses a set of nine complementary criteria, such as level of abstraction, tool availability, and traceability support. It classifies the approaches into five categories based on their principal style for specifying requirements: natural-language, semi-formal, automata/graphs, mathematical, and seamless (programming-language-based). It includes examples from all of these categories, altogether 21 different approaches, including for example SysML, Relax, Eiffel, Event-B, and Alloy.
The review discusses a number of open questions, including seamlessness, the role of tools and education, and how to make industrial applications benefit more from the contributions of formal approaches.
- J. R. Abrial. 2010. Modeling in Event-B: System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- J. R. Abrial, S. A. Schuman, and B. Meyer. 1980. Specification language. In On the Construction of Programs. Cambridge University Press, 343--410.Google Scholar
- S. Abualhaija, C. Arora, M. Sabetzadeh, L. C. Briand, and E. Vaz. 2019. A machine learning-based approach for demarcating requirements in textual specifications. In RE. IEEE, 51--62.Google Scholar
- D. Aceituna, H. Do, G. Singh Walia, and S. W. Lee. 2011. Evaluating the use of model-based requirements verification method: A feasibility study. In EmpiRE. IEEE Computer Society, 13--20.Google Scholar
- L. Aceto, A. Ingólfsdóttir, K. Guldstrand Larsen, and J.í Srba. 2009. Teaching concurrency: Theory in practice. In TFM, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5846. Springer, 158--175.Google Scholar
- D. Amyot. 2003. Introduction to the user requirements notation: Learning by example. Comput. Netw. 42, 3 (2003), 285--301.Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Arcaini, A. Gargantini, and E. Riccobene. 2017. Rigorous development process of a safety-critical system: From ASM models to Java code. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 19, 2 (2017), 247--269.Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Arnoux and A. Finkel. 2010. Using mental imagery processes for teaching and research in mathematics and computer science. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 41, 2 (2010), 229--242.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Arora, M. Sabetzadeh, L. C. Briand, and F. Zimmer. 2015. Automated checking of conformance to requirements templates using natural language processing. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 41, 10 (2015), 944--968.Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Bechhofer. 2018. OWL: Web ontology language. In Encyclopedia of Database Systems (2nd ed.). Springer.Google Scholar
- B. Berenbach, F. Schneider, and H. Naughton. 2012. The use of a requirements modeling language for industrial applications. In RE. IEEE Computer Society, 285--290.Google Scholar
- D. Bjørner and C. B. Jones (Eds.). 1978. The Vienna Development Method: The Meta-Language. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 61. Springer.Google Scholar
- F. Boniol and V. Wiels. 2014. The landing gear system case study. In ABZ (Case Study), Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 433. Springer, 1--18.Google Scholar
- P. Bourque and Richard E. Fairley (Eds.). 2014. Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK(R)): Version 3.0 (3rd ed.). IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
- M. Broy. 2018. A logical approach to systems engineering artifacts: Semantic relationships and dependencies beyond traceability - from requirements to functional and architectural views. Softw. Syst. Model. 17, 2 (2018), 365--393.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. M. Bruel, S. Ebersold, F. Galinier, A. Naumchev, M. Mazzara, and B. Meyer. 2021. The role of formalism in system requirements (additional material). https://github.com/anaumchev/requirements_survey/blob/main/The_role_of_formalism_in_system_requirements___additional_material_.pdf.Google Scholar
- Capterra. 2015. Retrieved from https://www.capterra.com/requirements-management-software/.Google Scholar
- J. M. Carrillo-de-Gea, J. Nicolás, J. L. Fernández Alemán, J. A. Toval Álvarez, C. Ebert, and A. Vizcaíno. 2011. Requirements engineering tools. IEEE Softw. 28, 4 (2011), 86--91.Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Cataño and C. Rueda. 2009. Teaching formal methods for the unconquered territory. In TFM, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5846. Springer, 2--19.Google Scholar
- F. E. Cellier. 1991. Continuous System Modeling. Springer.Google Scholar
- P. Pin-Shan Chen. 2002. The entity relationship model - Toward a unified view of data (reprint). In Software Pioneers. Springer, Berlin, 311--339.Google Scholar
- E. F. Codd. 1983. A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Comm. ACM 26, 1 (1983), 64--69.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. L. Colaço, B. Pagano, and M. Pouzet. 2005. A conservative extension of synchronous data-flow with state machines. In EMSOFT. ACM, 173--182.Google Scholar
- A. Cuccuru, C. Mraidha, F. Terrier, and S. Gérard. 2007. Enhancing UML extensions with operational semantics. In MoDELS, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4735. Springer, 271--285.Google Scholar
- P. L. da R. Rodrigues, M. Ecar, S. V. Menezes, J. P. S. da Silva, G. T. A. Guedes, and E. de M. Rodrigues. 2018. Empirical evaluation of formal method for requirements specification in agile approaches. In SBSI. ACM, 53:1--53:8.Google Scholar
- F. Dalpiaz. 2015. Teaching goal modeling in undergraduate education. In iStarT@CAiSE (CEUR Workshop Proceedings), Vol. 1370. CEUR-WS.org, 1--6.Google Scholar
- A. Dardenne, A. van Lamsweerde, and S. Fickas. 1993. Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci. Comput. Program. 20, 1-2 (1993), 3--50.Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Dean and M. Hinchey. 1996. Teaching and Learning Formal Methods. Academic Press.Google Scholar
- M. dos Santos Soares, J. L. M. Vrancken, and A. Verbraeck. 2011. User requirements modeling and analysis of software-intensive systems. J. Syst. Softw. 84, 2 (2011), 328--339.Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. B. Dwyer, G. S. Avrunin, and J. C. Corbett. 1998. Property specification patterns for finite-state verification. In FMSP. ACM, 7--15.Google Scholar
- Event-b. 2018. Retrieved from http://www.event-b.org/.Google Scholar
- M. Eysholdt and H. Behrens. 2010. Xtext: Implement your language faster than the quick and dirty way. In SPLASH/OOPSLA Companion. ACM, 307--309.Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Ferrari, F. Dell’Orletta, A. Esuli, V. Gervasi, and S. Gnesi. 2017. Natural language requirements processing: A 4D vision. IEEE Softw. 34, 6 (2017), 28--35.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Ferrari, G. Gori, B. Rosadini, I. Trotta, S. Bacherini, S. Fantechi, and S. Gnesi. 2018. Detecting requirements defects with NLP patterns: An industrial experience in the railway domain. Emp. Soft. Eng. 23, 6 (2018), 3684--3733.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eclipse foundation. 2015. Papyrus. Retrieved from https://eclipse.org/papyrus/.Google Scholar
- R. B. France, S. Ghosh, T. T. Dinh-Trong, and A. Solberg. 2006. Model-Driven development using UML 2.0: Promises and pitfalls. Computer 39, 2 (2006), 59--66.Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. D. Fraser, K. Kumar, and V. K. Vaishnavi. 1991. Informal and formal requirements specification languages: Bridging the gap. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 17, 5 (1991), 454--466.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Gibbons and J. Nuno Oliveira (Eds.). 2009. TFM. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5846. Springer.Google Scholar
- J. P. Gibson and D. Méry. 1998. Teaching formal methods: Lessons to learn. In IWFM (Workshops in Computing). BCS.Google Scholar
- Mario Gleirscher, Simon Foster, and Jim Woodcock. 2019. New opportunities for integrated formal methods. ACM Comput. Surv. 52, 6, Article 117 (Oct. 2019), 36 pages.Google Scholar
- Mario Gleirscher and Diego Marmsoler. 2018. Formal methods: Oversold? Underused? A survey. arxiv:1812.08815. Retrieved from https://arxiv.orb/abs/1812.08815.Google Scholar
- R. Gmehlich, K. Grau, F. Loesch, A. Iliasov, M. Jackson, and M. Mazzara. 2013. Towards a formalism-based toolkit for automotive applications. In FormaliSE@ICSE. IEEE Computer Society, 36--42.Google Scholar
- F. H. Golra, F. Dagnat, J. Souquières, I. Sayar, and S. Guérin. 2018. Bridging the gap between informal requirements and formal specifications using model federation. In SEFM, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10886. Springer, 54--69.Google Scholar
- M. T. Grinder. 2002. Animating automata: A cross-platform program for teaching finite automata. In SIGCSE. ACM, 63--67.Google Scholar
- R. Hähnle, K. Johannisson, and A. Ranta. 2002. An authoring tool for informal and formal requirements specifications. In FASE, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2306. Springer, 233--248.Google Scholar
- T. Hainey, T. M. Connolly, M. Stansfield, and E. A. Boyle. 2011. Evaluation of a game to teach requirements collection and analysis in software engineering at tertiary education level. Comput. Educ. 56, 1 (2011), 21--35.Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Harel. 1987. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comput. Program. 8, 3 (1987), 231--274.Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. M. Hierons, K. Bogdanov, J. P. Bowen, R. Cleaveland, J. Derrick, J. Dick, M. Gheorghe, M. Harman, K. Kapoor, P. J. Krause, G. Lüttgen, A. J. H. Simons, S. A. Vilkomir, M. R. Woodward, and H. Zedan. 2009. Using formal specifications to support testing. ACM Comput. Surv. 41, 2 (2009), 9:1--9:76.Google Scholar
- C. A. R. Hoare. 1978. Communicating sequential processes. Commun. ACM 21, 8 (1978), 666--677.Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. A. R. Hoare. 2002. An axiomatic basis for computer programming (reprint). In Software Pioneers. Springer, Berlin, 367--383.Google Scholar
- IBM. 2020. Rational Doors. Retrieved from https://www.ibm.com/products/requirements-management.Google Scholar
- IBM. 2020. Rational Rhapsody 8.1.5. Retrieved from https://www.ibm.com/products/systems-design-rhapsody.Google Scholar
- IEEE. 1998. IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications, IEEE Std 830-1998. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.1998.88286Google Scholar
- IEEE. 2011. ISO/IEC/IEEE Int. Standard - Systems and Software Engineering -- Life Cycle Processes --Requirements Engineering, ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2011(E), 2011.Google Scholar
- M. H. L. Wong Cheng In. 1994. Informal, Semi-formal, and Formal Approaches to the Specification of Software Requirements. MSc. Dissertation. University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
- F. Ishikawa, K. Taguchi, N. Yoshioka, and S. Honiden. 2009. What top-level software engineers tackle after learning formal methods: Experiences from the top SE project. In TFM. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5846. Springer, 57--71.Google Scholar
- D. Jackson. 2006. Software Abstractions—Logic, Language, and Analysis. MIT Press.Google Scholar
- M. Jackson. 2001. Problem Frames: Analyzing and Structuring Software Development Problems. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- B. Jeannet and F. Gaucher. 2015. Debugging real-time systems requirements: Simulate the “what” before the “how.” In Embedded World Conf. 6.Google Scholar
- M. Kassab, C. J. Neill, and P. A. Laplante. 2014. State of practice in requirements engineering: Contemporary data. Innov. Syst. Softw. Eng. 10, 4 (2014), 235--241.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Lamport. 2002. Specifying Systems, The TLA+ Language and Tools for Hardware and Software Engineers. Addison-Wesley.Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Laplante. 2017. Requirements Engineering for Software and Systems. Auerbach Publications.Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Gorm Larsen, J. S. Fitzgerald, and S. Riddle. 2009. Practice-oriented courses in formal methods using VDM. Formal Aspects Comput. 21, 3 (2009), 245--257.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gary T. Leavens, Albert L. Baker, and Clyde Ruby. 1998. JML: A Java modeling language. In Formal Underpinnings of Java Workshop (at OOPSLA’98). 404--420.Google Scholar
- F. L. Li, J. Horkoff, A. Borgida, G. Guizzardi, L. Liu, and J. Mylopoulos. 2015. From stakeholder requirements to formal specifications through refinement. In REFSQ, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9013. Springer, 164--180.Google Scholar
- S. Liu, K. Takahashi, T. Hayashi, and T. Nakayama. 2009. Teaching formal methods in the context of software engineering. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 41, 2 (2009), 17--23.Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Luckcuck, M. Farrell, L. A. Dennis, C. Dixon, and M. Fisher. 2019. Formal specification and verification of autonomous robotic systems: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 52, 5 (2019), 100:1--100:41.Google Scholar
- R. R. Lutz. 1993. Analyzing software requirements errors in safety-critical, embedded systems. In RE. IEEE Computer Society, 126--133.Google Scholar
- J. Magee and J. Kramer. 2006. Concurrency—State Models and Java Programs (2. ed.). Wiley.Google Scholar
- A. Matoussi, F. Gervais, and R. Laleau. 2010. An Event-B Formalization of KAOS Goal Refinement Patterns. [Research Report] TR-LACL-2010-1, LACL. Technical Report. University Paris 12. 1--34 pages.Google Scholar
- A. Mavin, P. Wilkinson, A. Harwood, and M. Novak. 2009. Easy approach to requirements syntax (EARS). In RE. IEEE Computer Society, 317--322.Google Scholar
- B. Meyer. 1985. On formalism in specifications. IEEE Softw. 2, 1 (1985), 6--26.Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Meyer. 1988, 1997. Object-Oriented Software Construction (1st and 2nd editions). Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- B. Meyer. 2003. A framework for proving contract-equipped classes. In Abstract State Machines, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2589. Springer, 108--125.Google Scholar
- B. Meyer. 2013. Multirequirements. Modeling and Quality in Req. Engineering (Glinz Festscrhift) (2013).Google Scholar
- B. Meyer, A. Fiva, I. Ciupa, A. Leitner, Y. Wei, and E. Stapf. 2009. Programs that test themselves. Computer 42, 9 (2009), 46--55.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Mich. 1996. NL-OOPS: From natural language to object oriented requirements using the natural language processing system LOLITA. Nat. Lang. Eng. 2, 2 (1996), 161--187.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Mich, M. Franch, and P. Novi Inverardi. 2004. Market research for requirements analysis using linguistic tools. Requir. Eng. 9, 1 (2004), 40--56.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Milner. 1980. A Calculus of Communicating Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 92. Springer.Google Scholar
- M. L. Minsky. 1967. Computation: Finite and Infinite Machines. Prentice Hall.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Modelica. 2017. Retrieved from https://doc.modelica.org/.Google Scholar
- ModelioSoft. 2017. Retrieved from https://www.modeliosoft.com/products/modelio-sa-system-architects.html.Google Scholar
- S. Moon, K. Hyung Lee, and D. Lee. 2004. Fuzzy branching temporal logic. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B 34, 2 (2004), 1045--1055.Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Nakatani. 2008. Requirements engineering education for professional engineers. In JCKBSE, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 180. IOS Press, 495--504.Google Scholar
- A. Naumchev. 2019. Exigences orientées objets dans un cycle de vie continu. Ph.D. Dissertation. Université de Toulouse, Université Toulouse III-Paul Sabatier.Google Scholar
- A. Naumchev. 2019. Object-oriented requirements: Reusable, understandable, verifiable. In TOOLS, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 11771. Springer, 150--162.Google Scholar
- A. Naumchev. 2019. Seamless object-oriented requirements. In SIBIRCON. 0743--0748.Google Scholar
- A. Naumchev and B. Meyer. 2016. Complete contracts through specification drivers. In TASE. IEEE Computer Society, 160--167.Google Scholar
- A. Naumchev, B. Meyer, M. Mazzara, F. Galinier, J.M. Bruel, and S. Ebersold. 2019. AutoReq: Expressing and verifying requirements for control systems. J. Comput. Lang. 51 (2019), 131--142.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Naumchev, B. Meyer, and V. Rivera. 2015. Unifying requirements and code: An example. In Ershov Memorial Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9609. Springer, 233--244.Google Scholar
- T. Nguyen. 2015. Verification of behavioural requirements for complex systems with FORM-L, a MODELICA extension. In ICSSEA.Google Scholar
- OMG. 2011. Unified Modeling Language, Superstructure, Version 2.4.1. Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1.Google Scholar
- OMG, Sanford Friedenthal, Alan Moore, and Rick Steiner. 2008. SysMl Tutorial. Retrieved from http://www.omgsysml.org/INCOSE-2008-OMGSysML-Tutorial-Final-revb.pdf.Google Scholar
- Object Management Group (OMG). 2007. OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML™), V1.0. OMG Document Number: Formal/2007-09-01. Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/1.0/PDF.Google Scholar
- Object Management Group (OMG). 2015. UML 2.5. Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5/.Google Scholar
- S. Ouhbi, A. Idri, J. Luis Fernández Alemán, and A. Toval. 2015. Requirements engineering education: A systematic mapping study. Requir. Eng. 20, 2 (2015), 119--138.Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. F. Paige and J. S. Ostroff. 2002. The single model principle. J. Object Technol. 1, 5 (2002), 63--81.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Lorge Parnas. 2010. Precise documentation: The key to better software. In The Future of Software Engineering. Springer, 125--148.Google Scholar
- J. L. Peterson. 1977. Petri nets. ACM Comput. Surv. 9, 3 (1977), 223--252.Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Pettersson and K/ G. Larsen. 2000. Uppaal2k. In Bull. Eur. Assoc. for Theoretical Computer Sc., Vol. 70. 40--44.Google Scholar
- The Overture Project. 2017. Overture Tool: Formal Modelling in VDM. Retrieved from http://overturetool.org/method/.Google Scholar
- Protégé. 2016. Retrieved from https://protege.stanford.edu/.Google Scholar
- Aarne Ranta. 2011. Grammatical Framework—Programming with Multilingual Grammars. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- P. Raymond, Y. Roux, and E. Jahier. 2008. Specifying and executing reactive scenarios with Lutin. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 203, 4 (2008), 19--34.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. N. Reed and J. E. Sinclair. 2004. Motivating study of formal methods in the classroom. In TFM, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3294. Springer, 32--46.Google Scholar
- Respect-it. 2011. Objectiver V3. Retrieved from http://www.objectiver.com.Google Scholar
- A. B. Romanovsky and M. Thomas (Eds.). 2013. Industrial Deployment of System Engineering Methods. Springer.Google Scholar
- A. W. Roscoe. 1997. The Theory and Practice of Concurrency. Prentice Hall.Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. E. Schneider and D. M. Buede. 2000. Properties of a high quality informal requirements document. INCOSE Springer Symp. 10, 1 (Jul. 2000), 352--359.Google Scholar
- S. A. Schneider, H. Treharne, and H. Wehrheim. 2014. The behavioural semantics of Event-B refinement. Formal Aspects Comput. 26, 2 (2014), 251--280.Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Scott and S. Cook. 2004. A context-free requirements grammar to facilitate automatic assessment. In AWRE. 4.1--4.10.Google Scholar
- J. Slankas and L. Williams. 2013. Automated extraction of non-functional requirements in available documentation. In NaturaLiSE. IEEE Computer Society, 9--16.Google Scholar
- SPIN / Promela. 2020. Retrieved from http://spinroot.com/spin/Man/promela.html.Google Scholar
- State Chart XML (SCXML) 2012. State Chart XML (SCXML): State Machine Notation for Control Abstraction. W3C Working Draft 16 February 2012. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/TR/scxml/.Google Scholar
- Stimulus. 2015. Retrieved from http://argosim.com/product-overview/.Google Scholar
- I. Stoica, R. Tappan Morris, D. R. Karger, M. F. Kaashoek, and H. Balakrishnan. 2001. Chord: A scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for internet applications. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 31, 4 (October 2001), 149--160.Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Su and J. R. Abrial. 2017. Aircraft landing gear system: Approaches with Event-B to the modeling of an industrial system. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 19, 2 (2017), 141--166.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dassault Systems. 2016. CATIA Reqtify. Retrieved from https://www.3ds.com/products-services/catia/products/reqtify.Google Scholar
- Sparx Systems. 2017. Enterprise Architect. Retrieved from https://sparxsystems.eu/enterprisearchitect/system-requirements/.Google Scholar
- S. Tarkan and V. Sazawal. 2009. Chief chefs of Z to Alloy: Using a kitchen example to teach Alloy with Z. In TFM, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,Vol. 5846. Springer, 72--91.Google Scholar
- Thomas Tilley, Richard Cole, Peter Becker, and Peter W. Eklund. 2005. A survey of formal concept analysis support for software engineering activities. In Formal Concept Analysis, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3626. Springer, 250--271.Google Scholar
- N. Tillmann, F. Chen, and W. Schulte. 2006. Discovering likely method specifications. In ICFEM, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4260. Springer, 717--736.Google Scholar
- N. Tillmann and J. de Halleux. 2008. Pex-white box test generation for .NET. In TAP, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4966. Springer, 134--153.Google Scholar
- N. Tillmann and W. Schulte. 2005. Parameterized unit tests. In ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE. ACM, 253--262.Google Scholar
- J. Tschannen, C. A. Furia, M. Nordio, and N. Polikarpova. 2015. AutoProof: Auto-active functional verification of object-oriented programs. In TACAS, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,Vol. 9035. Springer, 566--580.Google Scholar
- A. van Lamsweerde. 2000. Formal specification: A roadmap. In ICSE–Future of SE Track. ACM, 147--159.Google Scholar
- A. van Lamsweerde. 2001. Goal-oriented requirements engineering: A guided tour. In RE. IEEE Computer Society, 249.Google Scholar
- A. van Lamsweerde. 2004. Goal-oriented requirements engineering: A roundtrip from research to practice. In RE.IEEE Computer Society, 4--8.Google Scholar
- M. von der Beeck. 1994. A comparison of statecharts variants. In FTRTFT, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,Vol. 863. Springer, 128--148.Google Scholar
- J. Whittle, P. Sawyer, N. Bencomo, B. H. C. Cheng, and J.M. Bruel. 2009. RELAX: Incorporating uncertainty into the specification of self-adaptive systems. In RE. IEEE Computer Society, 79--88.Google Scholar
- K. Wiegers and J. Beatty. 2013. Software Requirements. Pearson Education.Google Scholar
- Jeannette M. Wing. 1988. A study of 12 specifications of the library problem. IEEE Softw. 5, 4 (1988), 66--76.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jim Woodcock, Peter Gorm Larsen, Juan Bicarregui, and John S. Fitzgerald. 2009. Formal methods: Practice and experience. ACM Comput. Surv. 41, 4 (2009), 19:1--19:36.Google Scholar
- E. Yu. 1997. Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In ISRE. IEEE Computer Society, 226--235.Google Scholar
- E. S. K. Yu and J. Mylopoulos. 1998. Why goal-oriented requirements engineering. In REFSQ. Presses Universitaires de Namur, 15--22.Google Scholar
- P. Zave. 2017. Reasoning about identifier spaces: How to make chord correct. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 43, 12 (2017), 1144--1156.Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Zave and M. Jackson. 1997. Four dark corners of requirements engineering. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 6, 1 (1997), 1--30.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Zhao, W. Alhoshan, A. Ferrari, K. J. Letsholo, M. A. Ajagbe, E. V. Chioasca, and R. T. Batista-Navarro. 2020. Natural language processing (NLP) for requirements engineering: A systematic mapping study. CoRR abs/2004.01099 (2020).Google Scholar
- D. Zowghi and S. Paryani. 2003. Teaching requirements engineering through role playing: Lessons learnt. In RE. IEEE Computer Society, 233.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- The Role of Formalism in System Requirements
Recommendations
Partial Validation of a Design Specification with Respect to Requirements
APAQS '01: Proceedings of the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on Quality SoftwareThis paper presents a method for partialvalidation of system design specifications. In ourmethod, the requirements are given as a set ofviews described with MSC and referred to as aset of MSCR. The design specification can begiven in any formal ...
Incremental requirements specification withLotos
AbstractThe importance of formally and incrementally specifying requirements is discussed. An approach based on LOTOS (Language Of Temporal Ordering Specification) is proposed that exploits desirable characteristics of the constraint-oriented style. The ...
A formal requirements engineering method for specification, synthesis, and verification
SEE '97: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Engineering Environments (SEE '97)This paper presents a formal requirements engineering method capturing specification, synthesis, and verification. Being multi-paradigm, our approach integrates individual established formal methods: temporal logics are used to express abstract ...
Comments