A Domain-Specific Language for Verifying Software Requirement Constraints

November 06, 2019 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Science of Computer Programming

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Marzina Vidal, Tiago Massoni, Franklin Ramalho arXiv ID 1911.02679 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 6 Venue Science of Computer Programming Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Software requirement analysis can certainly benefit from prevention and early detection of failures, in particular by some kind of automatic analysis. Formal methods offer means to represent and analyze requirements with rigorous tools, avoiding ambiguities and allowing automatic verification of requirement consistency. However, formalisms often clash in the culture or lack of skills of software analysts, making them challenging to apply. In this article, we propose a Domain-Specific Language (DSL) based on Set Theory for requirement analysts. The Graphical InvaRiant Language (GIRL) can be used to specify software requirement structural invariants, with entities and their relationships. Those invariants can then have their consistency evaluated by the Alloy Analyzer, based on a mapping semantics we provide for transforming GIRL models into Alloy specifications with no user intervention. With a prototypical language editor and transformations implemented into an Eclipse plugin, we carried out a qualitative study with requirement analysts working for a government software company in Brazil, to evaluate usability and effectiveness of the GIRL-based analysis of real software requirements. The participants were able to effectively use the underlying formal analysis, since 79 out of 80 assigned invariants were correctly modeled. While participants perceived as low the complexity of learning and using GIRL's simplest, set-based structures and relationships, the most complex logical structures, such as quantification and implication, were challenging. Furthermore, almost all post-study evaluations from the participants were positive, especially as a tool for discovering requirement inconsistencies.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted