Lightweight Behavior-Based Language for Requirements Modeling


Whether or not a software system satisfies the anticipated user requirements is ultimately determined by the behaviors of the software. So it is necessary and valuable to research requirements modeling language and technique from the perspective of behavior. This paper presents a lightweight behavior based requirements modeling language BDL with formal syntax and semantics, and a general-purpose requirements description model BRM synthesizing the concepts of viewpoint and scenario. BRM is good for modeling large and complex system due to its structure is very clear. In addition, the modeling process is demonstrated through the case study On-Line Campus Management System. By lightweight formal style, BDL & BRM can effectively bridge the gap between practicability and rigorousness of formal requirements modeling language and technique.

Share and Cite:

Liang, Z. , Wu, G. and Wan, L. (2010) Lightweight Behavior-Based Language for Requirements Modeling. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 3, 245-254. doi: 10.4236/jsea.2010.33030.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Object Management Group, “OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) Version 2.0,” 2005.
[2] J. E. Hopcroft, R. Motwani, and J. D. Ullman, “Introduc- tion to automata theory, languages, and computation,” 2nd Edition, Pearson Education, 2000.
[3] “Information technology—Z formal specification nota- tion—Syntax, type system and semantics,” ISO/IEC 13568, 2002.
[4] “Information processing systems—Open systems inter- connection—Enhancements to LOTOS—A formal des- cription technique based on the temporal ordering of observational behavior,” ISO/IEC 15437, 2001.
[5] J. L. Peterson, “Petri net theory and the modeling of systems,” Prentice Hall, 1981.
[6] R. Milner, “Communicating and mobile systems: The Pi-calculus,” Cambridge University Press, 1999.
[7] J. P. Bowen and M. G. Hinchey, “Ten commandments of formal methods... ten years later,” IEEE Computer, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 40–48, January 2006.
[8] J. Kong, K. Zhang, J. Dong, and D. Xu, “Specifying behavioral semantics of UML diagrams through graph transformations,” Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 82, No. 2, pp. 292–306, April 2009.
[9] C. Attiogbe, P. Poizat, and G. Salaun, “A formal and tool-equipped approach for the integration of state diagrams and formal datatypes,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 157–170, March 2007.
[10] M. Hinchey, M. Jackson, and P. Cousot, J. P. Bowen, and T. Margeria, “Software engineering and formal methods,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 51, No. 9, pp. 54–59, September 2008.
[11] G. Kotonya and I. Sommerville, “Requirements engineer- ing with viewpoints,” Software Engineering Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 5–18, January 1996.
[12] A. Sutcliffe, “Scenario-based requirements engineering,” in Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, Monterey, California, pp. 320–329, September 2003.
[13] A. Isazadeh, D. A. Lamb, and G. H. MacEwen, “View- charts: A behavioral specification language for complex systems,” Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Real-Time Systems, Honolulu, Hawaii, pp. 208–215, April 1996.
[14] A. Isazadeh and J. Karimpour, “Viewcharts: Syntax and semantic,” Informatica, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 345–362, March 2008.
[15] A. E. Ansary, “Requirements definition of real-time system using the Behavioral Patterns Analysis (BPA) approach: The elevator control system,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Software and Data Technologies, Barcelona, pp. 371–377, July 2007.
[16] K. Hashim and J. Yousoff, “A behavioral requirements specification approach for interactive multimedia appli- cations,” Proceedings of the 19th Australian Conference on Software Engineering, Perth, West Australia, pp. 696–699, March 2008.
[17] “OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML) Version 1.1,” Object Management Group, 2008.
[18] L. Lavazza and V. D. Bianco, “Combining problem frames and UML in the description of software require- ments,” In: B. Luciano, H. Reiko, Ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3922, pp. 199–213, 2006.
[19] P. Colombo, V. del Bianco, and L. Lavazza, “Towards the integration of sysml and problem frames,” Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Applications and Advances of Problem Frames, Leipzig, pp. 1–8, May 2008.
[20] A. Refsdal and K. Stolen, “Extending UML sequence diagrams to model trust-dependent behavior with the aim to support risk analysis,” Science of Computer Program- ming, Vol. 74, No. 1–2, pp. 34–42, January 2008.
[21] S. Schenider, “The B-method: An introduction,” Palgrave, 2001.
[22] C. B. Jones, “Systematic software development using VDM,” Prentice Hall, 1990.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.