Specification and Semantic Analysis of Embedded Systems Requirements: From Description Logic to Temporal Logic

  • Nesredin MahmudEmail author
  • Cristina Seceleanu
  • Oscar Ljungkrantz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10469)


Due to the increasing complexity of embedded systems, early detection of software/hardware errors has become desirable. In this context, effective yet flexible specification methods that support rigorous analysis of embedded systems requirements are needed. Current specification methods such as pattern-based, boilerplates normally lack meta-models for extensibility and flexibility. In contrast, formal specification languages, like temporal logic, Z, etc., enable rigorous analysis, however, they usually are too mathematical and difficult to comprehend by average software engineers. In this paper, we propose a specification representation of requirements, which considers thematic roles and domain knowledge, enabling deep semantic analysis. The specification is complemented by our constrained natural language specification framework, ReSA, which acts as the interface to the representation. The representation that we propose is encoded in description logic, which is a decidable and computationally-tractable ontology language. By employing the ontology reasoner, Hermit, we check for consistency and completeness of requirements. Moreover, we propose an automatic transformation of the ontology-based specifications into Timed Computation Tree Logic formulas, to be used further in model checking embedded systems.


Requirements specification Requirements analysis Embedded systems Ontology Description logic Timed computation tree logic Event-based semantics Thematic roles 


  1. 1.
    Martins, L.E.G., Gorschek, T.: Requirements engineering for safety-critical systems: a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 75, 71–89 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hull, E., Jackson, K., Dick, J.: Requirements Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In: Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering (IEEE Cat. No.99CB37002), pp. 411–420, May 1999Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Konrad, S., Cheng, B.H.C.: Real-time specification patterns. In: 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 372–381, May 2005Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacobson, P., Semantics, C.: An Introduction to the Syntax/Semantics Interface. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farfeleder, S., Moser, T., Krall, A., Stlhane, T., Zojer, H., Panis, C.: DODT: Increasing requirements formalism using domain ontologies for improved embedded systems development. In: 14th IEEE International Symposium on Design and Diagnostics of Electronic Circuits and Systems, pp. 271–274, April 2011Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arora, C., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L.C., Zimmer, F.: Requirement Boilerplates: Transition from manually-enforced to automatically-verifiable natural language patterns. In: 2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Requirements Patterns (RePa), pp. 1–8, August 2014Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaiya, H., Saeki, M.: Ontology based requirements analysis: Lightweight semantic processing approach. In: Fifth International Conference on Quality Software (QSIC 2005), pp. 223–230, September 2005Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mahmud, N., Seceleanu, C., Ljungkrantz, O.: ReSA: An ontology-based requirement specification language tailored to automotive systems. In: 10th IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems (SIES), June 2015Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mahmud, N., Seceleanu, C., Ljungkrantz, O.: ReSA tool: Structured requirements specification and SAT-based consistency-checking. In: Proceedings of 2016 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), September 2016Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davidson, D.: Essays on Actions and Events: Philosophical Essays. Clarendon Press, Oxford (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parsons, T.: Thematic relations and arguments. Linguist. Inq. 26(4), 635–662 (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and ApplicationsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bechhofer, S.: OWL: Web ontology language. In: Ling, L., Özsu, T. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Database Systems, pp. 2008–2009. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bhatt, M., Freksa, C.: Spatial computing for design an artificial intelligence perspective. In: Studying Visual and Spatial Reasoning for Design Creativity, pp. 109–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rector, A., Rogers, J.: Ontological and practical issues in using a description logic to represent medical concept systems: experience from GALEN. In: Barahona, P., Bry, F., Franconi, E., Henze, N., Sattler, U. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2006. LNCS, vol. 4126, pp. 197–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11837787_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shearer, R., Motik, B., Horrocks, I.: HermiT: A highly-efficient OWL reasoner. In: OWL: Experiences and Directions, vol. 432, p. 91 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alur, R., Courcoubetis, C., Dill, D.: Model-checking in dense real-time. Inf. Comput. 104(1), 2–34 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schuler, K.K.: VerbNet: A Broad-coverage, Comprehensive Verb Lexicon. Dissertations available from ProQuest. AAI3179808 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Palmer, M.: Semlink: Linking propbank, verbnet and framenet. In: Proceedings of the Generative Lexicon Conference, Italy, pp. 9–15 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miller, G.A.: WordNet: a lexical database for english. Commun. ACM 38(11), 39–41 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parsons, T.: Events in the Semantics of English, vol. 5. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Champollion, L.: The Interaction of compositional semantics and event semantics. Linguist. Philos. 38(1), 31 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ouhalla, J.: Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. Routledge, London (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kurtzman, H.S., MacDonald, M.C.: Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition 48(3), 243–279 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ferreira, V.S., Dell, G.S.: Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cogn. Psychol. 40(4), 296–340 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Finlayson, M.A.: Java libraries for accessing the princeton wordnet: comparison and evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 7th Global Wordnet Conference, Tartu, Estonia (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Post, A., Menzel, I., Hoenicke, J., Podelski, A.: Automotive behavioral requirements expressed in a specification pattern system: a case study at BOSCH. Requirements Eng. 17(1), 19–33 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dardenne, A., Van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci. Comput. Programm. 20(1–2), 3–50 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zowghi, D., Gervasi, V., McRae, A.: Using default reasoning to discover inconsistencies in natural language requirements. In: Proceedings Eighth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 133–140, December 2001Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reubenstein, H.B., Waters, R.C.: The requirements apprentice: automated assistance for requirements acquisition. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 17(3), 226–240 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kaiya, H., Saeki, M.: Using domain ontology as domain knowledge for requirements elicitation. In: 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2006), pp. 189–198, September 2006Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Farfeleder, S., Moser, T., Krall, A., Stålhane, T., Omoronyia, I., Zojer, H.: Ontology-driven guidance for requirements elicitation. In: Antoniou, G., Grobelnik, M., Simperl, E., Parsia, B., Plexousakis, D., Leenheer, P., Pan, J. (eds.) ESWC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6644, pp. 212–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21064-8_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Roth, M., Klein, E.: Parsing software requirements with an ontology-based semantic role labeler. In: Language and Ontologies, p. 15 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nesredin Mahmud
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cristina Seceleanu
    • 1
  • Oscar Ljungkrantz
    • 2
  1. 1.Mälardalen UniversityVästeråsSweden
  2. 2.Volvo Group Trucks TechnologyGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations