Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
This paper describes three case studies in the lightweight application of formal methods to requirements modeling for spacecraft fault protection systems. The case studies differ from previously reported applications of formal methods in that formal methods were applied very early in the requirements engineering process, to validate the evolving requirements. The results were fed back into the projects, to improve the informal specifications. For each case study, we describe what methods were applied, how they were applied, how much effort was involved, and what the findings were. In all three cases, formal methods enhanced the existing verification and validation processes, by testing key properties of the evolving requirements, and helping to identify weaknesses. We conclude that the benefits gained from early modeling of unstable requirements more than outweigh the effort needed to maintain multiple representations. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
1998 | 10.1109/32.663994 | IEEE Trans. Software Eng. |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
aerospace computing,fault tolerant computing,formal specification,program verification,space vehicles,systems analysis,case studies,evolving requirements validation,informal specifications,lightweight application,lightweight formal methods,multiple representations,requirements engineering process,requirements modeling,spacecraft fault protection systems,unstable requirements,validation processes | Embedded software,Software engineering,Systems engineering,Verification and validation,Computer science,Systems analysis,Formal specification,Formal methods,Application software,Needs analysis,Software requirements | Journal |
Volume | Issue | ISSN |
24 | 1 | 0098-5589 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
74 | 5.77 | 19 |
Authors | ||
6 | ||
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Steve Easterbrook | 1 | 2654 | 165.58 |
| Robyn Lutz | 2 | 1025 | 94.93 |
| Richard Covington | 3 | 74 | 5.77 |
| John Kelly | 4 | 90 | 10.33 |
| Yoko Ampo | 5 | 74 | 5.77 |
| David Hamilton | 6 | 82 | 6.90 |