Graphical development of consistent system specifications

9Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

While formal methods have promised essential benefits for the software development process, industrial development reality nevertheless relies mainly on informal and especially graphical description techniques. This article argues that formal techniques are indeed useful for practical application, but they should be put to indirect use. To demonstrate this approach, two pragmatic graphical description techniques, taken from the field of telecommunication, are analyzed regarding their information content and their application in the process of specification development; as a result these techniques are formally defined. Based on the formal definition, “safe” development steps and their graphical counterparts are introduced. This yields a graphical development method which relies on precise formal foundations.

References Powered by Scopus

Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems

4458Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Integrated structured analysis and formal specification techniques

46Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The industrial take-up of formal methods in safety-critical and other areas: A perspective

23Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Modeling with UML: Language, Concepts, Methods

95Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Towards a formalization of the unified modeling language

64Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Consistent graphical specification of distributed systems

39Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Schätz, B., Hußmann, H., & Broy, M. (1996). Graphical development of consistent system specifications. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 1051, pp. 248–267). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60973-3_91

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 4

44%

Researcher 3

33%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

11%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

11%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 7

70%

Engineering 2

20%

Environmental Science 1

10%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free