D. Harel and M. Politi. Modeling reactive systems with statecharts: the STATEMATE approach. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998. Home/Search Document Not in Database Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
First 50 documents Next 50
Documenting Software Architecture: Documenting Behavior - Bachmann, Bass.. (2002) (Correct)
.... [Booch et al. 99b] and The Unified Software Development Process [Booch et al. 99a] Books that serve as practical guides for using both ROOMcharts and statecharts include RealTime Object Oriented Modeling [Selic et al. 94] and Modeling Reactive Systems With Statecharts: The Statemate Approach [Harel Politi 98] ROOM has been incorporated into Rational UML tools. MSCs, especially when combined with SDL diagrams, are broadly used by the telecommunication industry. Both languages are standardized by the ITU. On the ITU Web site, you can find all the references to resources (such as documentation and tool ....
Harel, D. & Politi, M. Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The Statemate Approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1998.
De-Formalizing Statecharts - Garibay, Rogers (Correct)
....here arise in any such context. Consequently, they are not limited to the explicit processes of formalization and de formalization but potentially arise (although moderated by the nature of the task) in user interfaces for formal tools as well. 2 Translating Formulae to English Statecharts [HN96,HP98] are a variety of finite state automaton in which the states may be decomposed into substates. A configuration is the set of all states that are active at a given instant of time. The steps or transitions of the statechart are driven by a set of events with the events that are active at one ....
David Harel and Machal Politi. Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach. McGraw-Hill, 1998. QA 76.9 .S88 H3677 1998.
From Business Process Model to Consistent.. - Koehler, Tirenni.. (2002) (2 citations) (Correct)
....via Model Checking So far, we used automata as the basis of the operational models by which we specify the behavior of the processes and their implementing systems that we wish to investigate. This approach is not new and has been used successfully in the development of reactive systems [11] and in the VLSI design process [21] The next step is to use a formalism with which we can formulate precisely the properties we wish to investigate further. An ideal candidate for this is the Computation Tree Logic (CTL) 5] a temporal logic especially suited for behavioral descriptions of ....
....a timeout occurs or not all quotes have been received. 5 Related Work The formal specification of system and process models and the automatic verification of their properties is a longstanding area of research. Practical and widespread applications can be found in the area of reactive systems [11] and VLSI design [21] Model checking has become a very popular method to verify the properties of finite state concurrent systems [6, 1] Only recently have these methods attracted increasing interest in the area of business process automation and integration. Various research approaches can be ....
D. Harel and M. Politi. Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The Statemate Approach. McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Semantics and Verification of UML Activity Diagrams for Workflow.. - Eshuis (2002) (3 citations) (Correct)
....simultaneous instantiations of the same nodes, we have extended the statechart definition of configuration and step from sets of nodes and sets of hyperedges to bags of nodes and bags of hyperedges. Statemate and UML statechart semantics. Harel [88] introduced statecharts as part of Statemate [92], a structured analysis approach for modelling reactive systems. The two most important specification techniques in Statemate are statecharts and activity charts. Activity charts describe the functional view of the system. An activity chart consists of activities and the dataflows between them. ....
D. Harel and M. Politi. Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: the STATEMATE approach. McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Using Declarative Constraints to Specify the Data Model of.. - van Schooten (Correct)
....the way into a full system [15, 8] However, they are limited in their expressiveness because they can only practically describe a very limited number of states, requiring a large (and heuristic) abstraction step to be made with respect to the executable system. In the well known statechart model [7], transitions are speci ed by means of truth expressions, enabling such an abstraction step. UML 1.4 [6] speci es that a statechart corresponds to the behaviour of an object in a structure diagram. Various development environments exist that combine state machines with structure diagrams in a ....
....is used to check relational multiplicities. Mapping of state machines is more problematic however. The necessary abstraction step between the concrete state of the system and the abstract state machine should be formal, yet it should allow proper exibility. Following Harel s statechart approach [7], we specify transitions by an event, a condition on the state of the system, or a combination of both. Events and conditions may be speci ed as arbitrary OCL type truth expressions. Unlike OCL, our language separates the de nition of the sets (by means of queries) and the constraints on them. ....
David Harel and Michal Politi. Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach. McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Casl-Chart: a Combination of Statecharts and of the Algebraic .. - Reggio, Repetto (2000) (12 citations) (Correct)
....by Statemate. A full presentation of CaslChart (precise visual syntax, reference manual, static and dynamic semantics) can be found in [15] Unfortunately, we have not here the space to present algebraic specification and statecharts; the reader may refer, e.g. to [2] for the former, and to [8], for the latter. At this time we are not aware of other attempts to combine statecharts with an algebraic specification language, whereas there are many proposals for putting More information on CoFI at http: www.brics.dk Projects CoFI . together algebraic specification languages with other ....
D. Harel and M. Politi. Modeling Reactive Systems With Statecharts : The Statemate Approach. McGraw Hill, 1998.
The Rhapsody Semantics of Statecharts (or, On the Executable.. - Harel, Kugler (2001) Self-citation (Harel) (Correct)
No context found.
D. Harel and M. Politi. Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach. McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Specifying and Executing Behavioral Requirements: The.. - Harel, Marelly (2002) (3 citations) Self-citation (Harel) (Correct)
....languages, that were raised in [7] such as the ability to specify anti scenarios, and to distinguish between must and may behaviors, etc. for which LSCs were in fact developed. There are a number of commercial tools that successfully handle the execution of graphical models (e.g. Statemate [19] and Rhapsody by I Logix [22] ObjectTime [37] and Rose RT by Rational [33] Some of these tools can be connected to a GUI mockup (or a real target system) and will activate it as the execution progresses. However, these tools all execute an intraobject design model (usually, statecharts) rather ....
D. Harel and M. Politi. Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach. McGraw-Hill, 1998.
An Algorithm for Blob Hierarchy Layout - Harel, Yashchin (2002) (3 citations) Self-citation (Harel) (Correct)
No context found.
Harel D, Politi M (1998) Modeling reactive systems with statecharts: the statemate approach. McGraw-Hill, New York
LSCs: Breathing Life into Message Sequence Charts - Damm, Harel (2001) (57 citations) Self-citation (Harel) (Correct)
....in our requirements from the languages and models surrounding the LSCs For LSCs to make sense as a specification language, the implementation language must contain explicit ways of creating instances of the modeled system. For example, in a structured analysis framework, such as that of STATEMATE [21, 23], instances could correspond to activities, whereas in an object oriented framework such as the UML [36] or Rhapsody [20] they would correspond to instances of objects. Moreover, the implementation language will associate with each instance its data space as induced by variable declarations, and ....
....LSC for Perform approach : Scenario 2. tool that supports the UML the Rhapsody tool from I Logix, Inc. 20] the methodology described can also be adapted to more traditional design approaches of embedded real time software, relying on the structural decomposition paradigm (see e.g. [23]) The process described reflects discussions with many actual UML users in application domains such as telecommunication, avionics, automotive and train systems. Nevertheless, here we only demonstrate in basic terms how the expressive power of LSCs can be put to actual use; clearly many ....
D. Harel and M. Politi, Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach, McGrawHill, 1998.
Multiple Instances and Symbolic Variables in Executable.. - Marelly, Harel, Kugler (2002) (1 citation) Self-citation (Harel) (Correct)
....we have described here allows the specification in a single chart of unboundedly many behaviors that can vary in run time. Figure 13: Part of the conversation establishment protocol There are a number of commercial tools that successfully handle the execution of graphical models (e.g. Statemate [16] and Rhapsody by I Logix [17] ObjectTime [24] and Rose RT by Rational [22] By and large, these tools can be connected to a GUI mockup (and in some cases also a real target system) and they will activate it as the execution progresses. These tools handle classes, objects and the relations ....
D. Harel and M. Politi. Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach. McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Testing Conformance of a Deterministic - Implementation Against.. (Correct)
No context found.
D. Harel and M. Politi. Modeling reactive systems with statecharts: the STATEMATE approach. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998.
Reliability and State Machines in an Advanced Network Testbed - Newbold (2004) (Correct)
No context found.
Harel, D., and Politi, M. Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The Statemate Approach. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1998.
Establishing Formal Regulatory Requirements for.. - Vilkomir, Bowen (2002) (Correct)
No context found.
Harel, D., Politi, M. Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: the Statemate Approach. McGraw-Hill, 1998. 10
Accessing Databases from Esterel - David White Gerald (2004) (Correct)
No context found.
D. Harel and M. Politi. Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach. McGraw Hill, 1998.
Security in Business Process Engineering - Backes, Pfitzmann, Waidner (2003) (Correct)
No context found.
D. Harel and M. Politi. Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The Statemate Approach. McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Security in Business Process Engineering - Backes, Pfitzmann, Waidner (2003) (Correct)
No context found.
D. Harel and M. Politi. Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The Statemate Approach. McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Testing Conformance of a Deterministic Implementation against .. - Hierons, Harman (2001) (2 citations) (Correct)
No context found.
D. Harel and M. Politi. Modeling reactive systems with statecharts: the STATEMATE approach. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998.
Automated Verification of State-based specifications against.. - Bontemps (2001) (Correct)
No context found.
David Harel & Michael Politi. Modeling reactive systems with statecharts: the statemate approach. McGraw-Hill, 1998. ISBN 0-070-26205-5.
PAUL CAIRNS, MATTHEW JONES and HAROLD THIMBLEBY - Middlesex University London (Correct)
No context found.
D. Harel & M. Politi, 1998, Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The Statemate Approach, McGraw-Hill.
Meta-modelling of Dynamic Aspects: The Noesis Approach - Dominguez, Rubio, Zapata (Correct)
No context found.
D. Harel and M. Politi. Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach. McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Statecharts: From Visual Syntax to Model--Theoretic Semantics - Gerald Luttgen Michael (Correct)
No context found.
D. Harel and M. Politi. Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach. McGraw Hill, 1998.
A Responsive Architecture for Thinwire Visualization - Been, Yap (2002) (Correct)
No context found.
David Harel and Michal Politi. Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The Statemate Approach. McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Generating Candidates when testing a deterministic implementation .. - Hierons (2002) (Correct)
No context found.
D. Harel and M. Politi. Modeling reactive systems with statecharts: the STATEMATE approach. McGrawHill, New York, 1998.
Modeling and Validating Train System Applications Using.. - Bohn, Damm, Wittke, Moik (2002) (3 citations) (Correct)
No context found.
D. Harel, M. Politi, 1996, "Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach", i-Logix Inc.
First 50 documents Next 50
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