Advertisement

Assessment of a Formal Requirements Modeling Approach on a Transportation System

  • Steve Jeffrey Tueno FotsoEmail author
  • Régine Laleau
  • Marc Frappier
  • Amel Mammar
  • Francois Thibodeau
  • Mama Nsangou Mouchili
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11852)

Abstract

This paper describes a case study of the SysML/KAOS method for a road transportation system for the City of Montreal (VdM), the second-largest city in Canada. The transportation system was developed from unstructured requirements represented in textual and schematic documents. Therefore, the VdM wanted to investigate new ways of organising and analysing the requirements of traffic projects, in order to increase the level of confidence in their safety, usability and reusability. This paper describes the formal specification, verification and validation of system requirements and provides an appraisal of the SysML/KAOS requirements engineering method on an industrial-scale case study. SysML/KAOS is designed within the ANR FORMOSE project to bridge the gap between stakeholder needs and the formal specification of system functionalities and domain constraints. The method has proven useful to deal with the seven refinement levels, twelve components (human, hardware, software and cyber-physical) and a hundred functional and non-functional goals that constitute the specification of the road transportation system, mainly focused on the safe movement of vehicles on road. It especially facilitated their validation with VdM stakeholders who had never dealt with formal methods and requirements engineering. Animation tools (ProB and B-Motion Studio) were also used to validate the formal specification with VdM stakeholders. This paper also reports improvements identified to enhance the expressiveness of SysML/KAOS goal modeling languages during validation sessions with VdM stakeholders. This includes the introduction of a non-functional goal refinement strategy based on logical formulas and of an obstacle modeling language.

Keywords

Road transportation system Requirements engineering Formal models Domain modeling SysML/KAOS B System Event-B 

References

  1. 1.
    Road transportation system: SysML/KAOS requirements modeling (2018). https://github.com/stuenofotso/SysML_KAOS_Domain_Model_Parser/tree/master/Bonaventure_project
  2. 2.
    Abrial, J.: Modeling in Event-B - System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrial, J.R., Abrial, J.R.: The B-Book: Assigning Programs to Meanings. Cambridge University Press, New York (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ANR-14-CE28-0009: Formose ANR project (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Butler, M.J., Jones, C.B., Romanovsky, A., Troubitsyna, E. (eds.): Rigorous Development of Complex Fault-Tolerant Systems. LNCS, vol. 4157. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11916246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Butler, M., Raschke, A., Hoang, T.S., Reichl, K. (eds.): ABZ 2018. LNCS, vol. 10817. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91271-4CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ClearSy: Atelier B: B System (2014). http://clearsy.com/
  8. 8.
    Deploy Project: Rodin Atelier B Provers Plug-in (2017). https://www3.hhu.de
  9. 9.
    Fotso, S.J.T., Frappier, M., Laleau, R., Mammar, A.: Back propagating B system updates on SysML/KAOS domain models. In: ICECCS, pp. 160–169. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fotso, S.J.T., Frappier, M., Laleau, R., Mammar, A.: Modeling the hybrid ERTMS/ETCS level 3 standard using a formal requirements engineering approach. In: Butler et al. [6], pp. 262–276Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fotso, S.J.T., Mammar, A., Laleau, R., Frappier, M.: Event-B expression and verification of translation rules between SysML/KAOS domain models and B system specifications. In: Butler et al. [6], pp. 55–70Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gnaho, C., Laleau, R., Semmak, F., Bruel, J.M.: bCMS requirements modelling using SysML/KAOSGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gnaho, C., Semmak, F., Laleau, R.: An overview of a SysML extension for goal-oriented NFR modelling. In: RCIS 2013, Paris, France, 29–31 May 2013, pp. 1–2. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hause, M., et al.: The SysML modelling language. In: Fifteenth European Systems Engineering Conference, vol. 9. Citeseer (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ladenberger, L., Bendisposto, J., Leuschel, M.: Visualising event-B models with B-motion studio. In: Alpuente, M., Cook, B., Joubert, C. (eds.) FMICS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5825, pp. 202–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04570-7_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laleau, R., Semmak, F., Matoussi, A., Petit, D., Hammad, A., Tatibouet, B.: A first attempt to combine SysML requirements diagrams and B. Innov. Syst. Softw. Eng. 6(1–2), 47–54 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering - From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Wiley, Chichester (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lecomte, T., Deharbe, D., Prun, E., Mottin, E.: Applying a formal method in industry: a 25-year trajectory. In: Cavalheiro, S., Fiadeiro, J. (eds.) SBMF 2017. LNCS, vol. 10623, pp. 70–87. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70848-5_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leuschel, M., Butler, M.: ProB: a model checker for B. In: Araki, K., Gnesi, S., Mandrioli, D. (eds.) FME 2003. LNCS, vol. 2805, pp. 855–874. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45236-2_46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mashkoor, A., Jacquot, J.: Utilizing Event-B for domain engineering: a critical analysis. Requir. Eng. 16(3), 191–207 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mashkoor, A., Jacquot, J.: Validation of formal specifications through transformation and animation. Requir. Eng. 22(4), 433–451 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Matoussi, A., Gervais, F., Laleau, R.: A goal-based approach to guide the design of an abstract Event-B specification. In: ICECCS 2011, pp. 139–148 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Openflexo: Openflexo project (2019). http://www.openflexo.org
  24. 24.
    Parnas, D.L., Madey, J.: Functional documents for computer systems. Sci. Comput. Program. 25(1), 41–61 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pierra, G.: The PLIB ontology-based approach to data integration. In: Jacquart, R. (ed.) Building the Information Society. IIFIP, vol. 156, pp. 13–18. Springer, Boston (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8157-6_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sengupta, K., Hitzler, P.: Web ontology language (OWL). In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining, pp. 2374–2378. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24750-0_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tueno, S., Frappier, M., Laleau, R., Mammar, A., Barradas, H.R.: The Generic SysML/KAOS Domain Metamodel. ArXiv e-prints, cs.SE, 1811.04732, November 2018Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tueno, S., Laleau, R., Mammar, A., Frappier, M.: Towards using ontologies for domain modeling within the SysML/KAOS approach. In: IEEE Proceedings of MoDRE Workshop, 25th IEEE International Requirements Engineering ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tueno, S., Laleau, R., Mammar, A., Frappier, M.: Formal representation of SysML/KAOS domain models. ArXiv e-prints, cs.SE, 1712.07406, December 2017Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Lamsweerde, A.: Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software, vol. 10. Wiley, Chichester (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yu, E.S.K.: Towards modeling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: RE, pp. 226–235. IEEE Computer Society (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steve Jeffrey Tueno Fotso
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Régine Laleau
    • 1
  • Marc Frappier
    • 2
  • Amel Mammar
    • 3
  • Francois Thibodeau
    • 4
  • Mama Nsangou Mouchili
    • 4
  1. 1.LACL, Université Paris-Est CréteilCréteilFrance
  2. 2.GRILUniversité de SherbrookeQuébecCanada
  3. 3.SAMOVAR, CNRS, Télécom-SudParis, Institut Polytechnique de ParisÉvryFrance
  4. 4.Ville de MontréalQuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations