| B. Jonsson, T. Margaria, G. Naeser, J. Nystrom, and B. Ste#en. Incremental Requirement Specification for Evovlving Systems. In Calder and Magill [1], pages 145--162. |
....feature interaction with logical contradiction. In our opinion, logical contradiction is a su#cient but not a necessary condition for a feature interaction to appear. An example will be given in Section 7. 158 Maritta Heisel and Jeanine Souquieres Other recent logical approaches are described in [13,16 18]. All of them use model checking techniques to detect interactions. Jonsson et al. 16] propose a technique for hierarchically structuring requirements specifications in a way that simplifies change management and supports validation. As in our approach, requirements can be formulated and updated ....
....but not a necessary condition for a feature interaction to appear. An example will be given in Section 7. 158 Maritta Heisel and Jeanine Souquieres Other recent logical approaches are described in [13,16 18] All of them use model checking techniques to detect interactions. Jonsson et al. [16] propose a technique for hierarchically structuring requirements specifications in a way that simplifies change management and supports validation. As in our approach, requirements can be formulated and updated incrementally, supporting an evolutionary modelling of the application domain. ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
B. Jonsson, T. Margaria, G. Naeser, J. Nystrom, and B. Ste#en. Incremental Requirement Specification for Evovlving Systems. In Calder and Magill [1], pages 145--162.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC