S. Easterbrook, R. Lutz, J. Covington, J. Kelly, M. Ampo, and D. Hamilton. Experiences using formal methods for requirement modeling. NASA/WVU Software Research Lab, Fairmont, WV, Technical Report NASA-IVV-96-018, 1996.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....informal models for checking requirements, identifying missing constraints etc. Prove formally, and other validation approaches such as prove rigorously and animate. Specimen: A lightweight Z analysis of CORBA [Basin et al. 2002] One of the first uses of the term lightweight formalism was in [Easterbrook et al. 1996], on spacecraft fault protection systems, using diagrammatic methods and PVS. Focus the formality (elaboration) requirements Intent: Use a formal approach in the requirements elicitation process. Focus the formality (elaboration) specification only Intent: Use Z to express or explore the ....

S. Easterbrook, R. Lutz, J. Covington, J. Kelly, M. Ampo, and D. Hamilton. Experiences using formal methods for requirement modeling. NASA/WVU Software Research Lab, Fairmont, WV, Technical Report NASA-IVV-96-018, 1996.

....for handling requirements specifications which are (1) not originally structured as a multi perspective specification, and (2) still evolving. The basic approach. Our restructuring approach is situated in the middle ground between informal specification inspections [17] and formal analysis [6]. Our objective is to describe existing specifications as a structure of related viewpoints, and then use this as the basis for conducting a series of consistency checks and inconsistency analyses. The approach is comprised of five activities. Existing informal specifications are decomposed into ....

.... What added confidence to our analysis was that some of the inconsistencies identified by our study were also identified by NASA s Independent Validation Verification (IV V) group, who used a different approach based on modeling informal specifications using formal methods such as SCR and PVS [6]. While the results of NASA s and our approaches are comparable similar inconsistencies were identified in the 1553 FDIR function we believe that our approach provided a much cheaper alternative to wholesale formalisation of the original specification documents. Nevertheless, given a ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Easterbrook, S., Lutz, R., Covington, J.K., Kelly, J., Ampo, M. and Hamilton, D.: `Experiences using Formal Methods for Requirement Modeling'. NASA/WVU Software Research Lab, Fairmont, WV, Technical Report \# NASA-IVV-96-018, 1996.

....specifications which are (1) not originally structured as a multi perspective specification, and (2) still evolving. The basic approach Our restructuring approach is situated in the middle ground between informal (and error prone) specification inspection [16] and (expensive) formal analysis [6]. Our objective is to describe existing specifications as a structure of related viewpoints, and then use this as the basis for conducting a series of consistency checks and inconsistency analyses. The approach is comprised of five activities. Existing informal specifications are decomposed into ....

.... What added confidence to our analysis was that some of the inconsistencies identified by our study were also identified by NASA s Independent Validation Verification (IV V) group, who used a different approach based on modelling informal specifications using formal methods such as SCR and PVS [6]. While the results of NASA s and our approaches are comparable similar inconsistencies were identified in the 1553 FDIR function we believe that our approach provided a much cheaper alternative to wholesale formalisation of the original specification documents. Nevertheless, given a ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

S. Easterbrook, R. Lutz, J.K. Covington, J.Kelly, M. Ampo and D. Hamilton, "Experiences using Formal Methods for Requirement Modeling", NASA/WVU Software Research Lab, Fairmont, WV, Techn. Report # NASA-IVV-96-018, 1996.

....specifications which are (1) not originally structured as a multiperspective specification, and (2) still evolving. The basic approach Our restructuring approach is situated in the middle ground between informal (and error prone) specification inspection [7] and (expensive) formal analysis [10]. Our objective is to describe existing specifications as a structure of related viewpoints, and then use this as the basis for conducting a series of consistency checks and inconsistency analyses. The approach is comprised of five activities. Existing informal specifications are decomposed into ....

.... What added confidence to our analysis was that some of the inconsistencies identified by our study were also identified by NASA s Independent Validation Verification (IV V) group, who used a different approach based on modelling informal specifications using formal methods such as SCR and PVS [10]. While the results of NASA s and our approaches are comparable similar inconsistencies were identified in the 1553 FDIR function we believe that our approach provided a much cheaper alternative to wholesale formalisation of the original specification documents. Nevertheless, given a ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

S. Easterbrook, R. Lutz, J.K. Covington, J.Kelly, M. Ampo and D. Hamilton. Experiences using Formal Methods for Requirement Modeling. NASA/WVU Software Research Lab, Fairmont, WV, Technical Report # NASA-IVV-96-018, 1996.

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