Abstract
Requirement engineering usually involves repeated refinements of the requirements specifications, starting with high-level systems goals and constraints, to more precise and measurable specifications of intended behavior, to detailed, focused statements that provide the basis for formal reasoning. We refer to these more detailed, mathematically rigorous specifications as property specifications. Although care must be taken when defining requirements at all these levels of abstraction, it is particularly difficult to accurately capture all the subtle details associated with property specifications. To help understand these decisions, the PROPEL (PROPerty ELicitation) system [1, 2] provides templates for commonly occurring property patterns [3] in which the options that need to be considered for each pattern are explicitly represented. PROPEL currently provides three views of each template and its associated options: natural language phrases to be selected, a set of hierarchical questions to be answered, or a finite-state automaton with optional labels, transitions, and accepting states to be selected. After all the options have been selected for a template, the finite-state automaton view provides a mathematically precise property specification.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Smith, R.L., Avrunin, G.S., Clarke, L.A., Osterweil, L.J.: PROPEL: An Approach Supporting Property Elucidation. In: 24th International Conference on Software Engineering, Orlando, FL, pp. 11–21 (2002)
Cobleigh, R.L., Avrunin, G.S., Clarke, L.A.: User Guidance for Creating Precise and Accessible Property Specifications. In: 14th International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, Portland, OR, pp. 208–218 (2006)
Dwyer, M.B., Avrunin, G.S., Corbett, J.C.: Patterns in Property Specifications for Finite-State Verification. In: 21st International Conference on Software Engineering, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 411–420 (1999)
Cass, A.G., Lerner, B.S., McCall, E.K., Osterweil, L.J., Sutton Jr., S.M., Wise, A.: Little-JIL/Juliette: A Process Definition Language and Interpreter. In: Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland, pp. 754–758 (2000)
Dwyer, M.B., Clarke, L.A., Cobleigh, J.M., Naumovich, G.: Flow Analysis for Verifying Properties of Concurrent Software Systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 13, 359–430 (2004)
Chen, B., Avrunin, G.S., Henneman, E.A., Clarke, L.A., Osterweil, L.J., Henneman, P.L.: Analyzing Medical Processes. In: 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, Leipzig, Germany (to appear, 2008)
Clarke, L.A., Avruinin, G.S., Osterweil, L.J.: Using Software Engineering Technology to Improve the Quality of Medical Processes. In: 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, Leipzig, Germany (to appear, 2008)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Clarke, L.A. (2008). Getting the Details Right. In: Paech, B., Martell, C. (eds) Innovations for Requirement Analysis. From Stakeholders’ Needs to Formal Designs. Monterey Workshop 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5320. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89778-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89778-1_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-89777-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-89778-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)