Validating feature‐based specifications

It is argued that specifications should be rigorously validated against requirements. This is useful to build confidence in a specification and to check a specification after it or the requirements have changed. The multiple‐use scenario test and refusal description (MUSTARD) is introduced as a means of formulating and formalizing validation scenarios. The practical use of MUSTARD on a number of case studies is introduced. The MUSTARD notation is then explained, using examples from Internet telephony to show how validation scenarios are written. The core MUSTARD constructs are augmented by domain‐specific vocabularies that adapt it for different kinds of systems. It is demonstrated how MUSTARD can validate specifications written in two standardized formal languages: language of temporal ordering specification (LOTOS) and specification and description language (SDL). Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Nikolai Mansurov,et al.  Automatic synthesis of SDL models in use case methodology , 1999, SDL Forum.

[2]  Kenneth J. Turner,et al.  Representing New Voice Services and Their Features , 2003, FIW.

[3]  John King,et al.  Service Validation and Testing , 1995, FIW.

[4]  Matjaz B. Juric,et al.  Business process execution language for web services , 2004 .

[5]  D. Richard Kuhn.  A Technique for Analyzing the Effects of Changes in Formal Specifications , 1992, Comput. J..

[6]  Kenneth J. Turner,et al.  Test generation for radiotherapy accelerators , 2005, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer.

[7]  R. Kalyanaraman,et al.  Generation of design verification tests from behavioral VHDL programs using path enumeration and constraint programming , 1995, IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. Syst..

[8]  Lydie du Bousquet,et al.  Incremental Feature Validation: a Synchronous Point of View , 1998, FIW.

[9]  Kenneth J. Turner,et al.  Analysing interactive voice services , 2004, Comput. Networks.

[10]  Kenneth J. Turner,et al.  Validating Architectural Feature Descriptions using LOTOS , 1998, FIW.

[11]  Jan Tretmans,et al.  Test Generation with Inputs, Outputs and Repetitive Quiescence , 1996, Softw. Concepts Tools.

[12]  Ekkart Rudolph,et al.  Tutorial on Message Sequence Charts , 1996, Comput. Networks ISDN Syst..

[13]  Kenneth J. Turner,et al.  Verifying and Testing Asynchronous Circuits using LOTOS , 2000, FORTE.

[14]  P. K. Chaturvedi,et al.  Communication Systems , 2002, IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing.

[15]  J. Davenport.  Editor , 1960 .

[16]  Rocco De Nicola,et al.  Extensional equivalences for transition systems , 1987, Acta Informatica.

[17]  Adam C. Winstanley,et al.  Making Changes to Formal Specifications: Requirements and an Example , 1994, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[18]  Yow-Jian Lin,et al.  A feature-interaction benchmark for IN and beyond , 1993, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[19]  Kenneth J. Turner.  Formalising the Chisel Feature Notation , 2000, FIW.

[20]  Tommaso Bolognesi,et al.  Tableau methods to describe strong bisimilarity on LOTOS processes involving pure interleaving and enabling , 1994, FORTE.

[21]  Kenneth J. Turner,et al.  Using Formal Description Techniques: An Introduction to Estelle, Lotos, and SDL , 1993 .

[22]  Rudolf Schmid,et al.  Organization for the advancement of structured information standards , 2002 .

[23]  John A. McDermid,et al.  Incremental processing of Z specifications , 1992, FORTE.

[24]  Kenneth J. Turner,et al.  (E)-LOTOS: (Enhanced) language of temporal ordering specification , 2001 .

[25]  Mario Kolberg,et al.  Feature interaction: a critical review and considered forecast , 2003, Comput. Networks.

[26]  Tony Andrews.  Business Process Execution Language for Web Services Version 1.1 , 2003 .

[27]  Richard Wellershoff.  Multimedia communication systems , 1993 .

[28]  Thierry Jéron,et al.  TGV : theory , principles and algorithms A tool for the automatic synthesis of conformance test cases for non-deterministic reactive systems , 2004 .