11.2.1 Requirements Statements Are Transfer Functions: An Insight from Model‐Based Systems Engineering

Traditional systems engineering pays attention to careful composition of prose requirements statements. Even so, prose appears less than what is needed to advance the art of systems engineering into a theoretically-based engineering discipline comparable to Electrical, Mechanical, or Chemical Engineering. Ask three people to read a set of prose requirements statements, and a universal experience is that there will be three different impressions of their meaning. The rise of Model-Based Systems Engineering might suggest the demise of prose requirements, but we argue otherwise. This paper shows how prose requirements can be productively embedded in and a valued formal part of requirements models. This leads to the practice-impacting insight that requirements statements can be non-linear extensions of linear transfer functions, shows how their ambiguity can be further reduced using ordinary language, how their completeness or overlap more easily audited, and how they can be "understood" more completely by engineering tools.

[1]  William D. Schindel,et al.  Results of Applying a Families-of-Systems Approach to Systems Engineering of Product Line Families , 2002 .

[2]  강문설.  [서평]「The Unified Modeling Language User Guide」 , 1999 .

[3]  Dennis M. Buede,et al.  The Engineering Design of Systems: Models and Methods , 1999 .

[4]  William Emerson,et al.  The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy , 2013 .

[5]  M. C. Escher,et al.  The Graphic Work , 1994 .

[6]  John Mylopoulos,et al.  Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering , 2000, International Series in Software Engineering.

[7]  J. Hauser,et al.  The House of Quality , 1988 .

[8]  N. Hari Narayanan,et al.  Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives , 1995 .

[9]  Max Jacobson,et al.  A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction , 1981 .

[10]  S. Pinker,et al.  The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language , 1994 .

[11]  Ralph Johnson,et al.  design patterns elements of reusable object oriented software , 2019 .

[12]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  The Unified Modeling Language User Guide , 1998, J. Database Manag..

[13]  G. Marcus.  The Algebraic Mind: Integrating Connectionism and Cognitive Science , 2001 .

[14]  A. Terry Bahill,et al.  The hybrid process that combines traditional requirements and use cases , 2004, Syst. Eng..

[15]  Peter J. Ashenden,et al.  The Designer's Guide to VHDL , 1995 .

[16]  S. Pinker.  The language instinct : how the mind creates language , 1995 .

[17]  Rudolf Carnap,et al.  Introduction to Symbolic Logic and Its Applications , 1958 .

[18]  Gerald J. Sussman,et al.  Structure and interpretation of classical mechanics , 2001 .

[19]  Scott Tremaine,et al.  Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics , 2002 .

[20]  J. M. Ottino,et al.  Engineering complex systems , 2004, Nature.

[21]  Stephen J. Mellor,et al.  Executable UML - A Foundation for Model-Driven Architecture , 2002, Addison Wesley object technology series.

[22]  William D. Schindel,et al.  System Engineering: An Overview of Complexity's Impact , 1996 .

[23]  B. L. Whorf.  Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf , 1956 .

[24]  S. Hayakawa.  Language in Thought and Action , 1949 .

[25]  Susan Carlson Skalak.  House of Quality , 2002 .

[26]  S. Pinker.  The Language Instinct , 1994 .

[27]  Nicholas M. Karayanakis.  Computer-assisted simulation of dynamic systems with block-diagram languages , 1993 .