Systematic Review of Software Behavioral Model Consistency Checking

Abstract

In software development, models are often used to represent multiple views of the same system. Such models need to be properly related to each other in order to provide a consistent description of the developed system. Models may contain contradictory system specifications, for instance, when they evolve independently. Therefore, it is very crucial to ensure that models conform to each other. In this context, we focus on consistency checking of behavior models. Several techniques and approaches have been proposed in the existing literature to support behavioral model consistency checking. This article presents a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) that was carried out to obtain an overview of the various consistency concepts, problems, and solutions proposed regarding behavior models. In our study, the identification and selection of the primary studies was based on a well-planned search strategy. The search process identified a total of 1770 studies, out of which 96 have been thoroughly analyzed according to our predefined SLR protocol. The SLR aims to highlight the state-of-the-art of software behavior model consistency checking and identify potential gaps for future research. Based on research topics in selected studies, we have identified seven main categories: targeted software models, types of consistency checking, consistency checking techniques, inconsistency handling, type of study and evaluation, automation support, and practical impact. The findings of the systematic review also reveal suggestions for future research, such as improving the quality of study design and conducting evaluations, and application of research outcomes in industrial settings. For this purpose, appropriate strategy for inconsistency handling, better tool support for consistency checking and/or development tool integration should be considered in future studies.

References

1. Vander Alves, Nan Niu, Carina Alves, and George Valença. 2010. Requirements engineering for software product lines: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology 52, 8 (Aug. 2010), 806--820.
2. Luigi Atzori, Antonio Iera, and Giacomo Morabito. 2010. The internet of things: A survey. Computer Networks 54, 15 (Oct 2010), 2787--2805.
3. Victor R. Basili and David M. Weiss. 1984. A methodology for collecting valid software engineering data. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 10, 6 (Nov. 1984), 728--738.
4. Eerke Boiten, Howard Bowman, John Derrick, Peter Linington, and Maarten Steen. 2000. Viewpoint consistency in {ODP}. Computer Networks 34, 3 (2000), 503--537.
5. Pearl Brereton, Barbara A. Kitchenham, David Budgen, Mark Turner, and Mohamed Khalil. 2007. Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of Systems and Software 80, 4 (2007), 571--583.
6. David Budgen, Andy J. Burn, O. Pearl Brereton, Barbara A. Kitchenham, and Rialette Pretorius. 2011. Empirical evidence about the UML: A systematic literature review. Software: Practice and Experience. 41, 4 (April 2011), 363--392.
7. Lianping Chen and Muhammad Ali Babar. 2011. A systematic review of evaluation of variability management approaches in software product lines. Information and Software Technology 53, 4 (2011), 344--362.
8. E. M. Clarke, William Klieber, M. Nováček, and P. Zuliani. 2011. Model checking and the state explosion problem. In International Summer School on Tools for Practical Software Verification (LASER) - Revised Tutorial Lectures. Springer, 1--30.
9. Edmund M. Clarke, Jr., Orna Grumberg, and Doron A. Peled. 1999. Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
10. Gregor Engels, Jochem M. Küster, Reiko Heckel, and Luuk Groenewegen. 2001. A methodology for specifying and analyzing consistency of object-oriented behavioral models. In Proceedings of the 8th European Software Engineering Conference, Held jointly with 9th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE). ACM, New York, NY, 186--195.
11. Rik Eshuis and Paul Grefen. 2007. Structural matching of BPEL processes. In Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Web Services (ECOWS’07). IEEE, 171--180.
12. Anthony Finkelsteiin, Dov M. Gabbay, Anthony Hunter, Jeff Kramer, and Bashar Nuseibeh. 1993. Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications. In Proceedings of the 4th European Software Engineering Conference on Software Engineering (ESEC’93). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 84--99.
13. Pascal Fradet, Daniel Le Métayer, and Michaël Périn. 1999. Consistency checking for multiple view software architectures. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 24, 6 (Nov. 1999), 410--428.
14. David Frankel. 2002. Model Driven Architecture: Applying MDA to Enterprise Computing. John Wiley 8 Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
15. Matthias Galster, Danny Weyns, Dan Tofan, Bartosz Michalik, and Paris Avgeriou. 2014. Variability in software systems--A systematic literature review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 40, 3 (March 2014), 282--306.
16. Dimitra Giannakopoulou and Klaus Havelund. 2001. Runtime Analysis of Linear Temporal Logic Specifications. Technical Report August. Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science. 1--11 pages.
17. Stijn Goedertier, Jan Vanthienen, and Filip Caron. 2015. Declarative business process modelling: principles and modelling languages. Enterprise Information Systems 9, 2 (2015), 161--185.
18. G. Goth. 2008. Ultralarge systems: Redefining software engineering? Software, IEEE 25, 3 (May 2008), 91--94.
19. Henri Habrias and Marc Frappier. 2006. Software Specification Methods - An Overview Using a Case Study. ISTE Ltd., London, UK.
20. David Harel. 1987. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming 8, 3 (1987), 231--274.
21. Zbigniew Huzar, Ludwik Kuzniarz, Gianna Reggio, and Jean Louis Sourrouille. 2005. Consistency problems in UML-based software development. In Proceedings of the International Conference on UML Modeling Languages and Applications (UML) Satellite Activities -- Revised Selected Papers. Springer, Berlin, 1--12.
22. Martin Ivarsson and Tony Gorschek. 2011. A method for evaluating rigor and industrial relevance of technology evaluations. Empirical Software Engineering 16, 3 (2011), 365--395.
23. Barbara Kitchenham. 2004. Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele University 33, 2004 (2004), 1--26.
24. Barbara Kitchenham and Pearl Brereton. 2013. A systematic review of systematic review process research in software engineering. Information and Software Technology 55, 12 (2013), 2049--2075.
25. Barbara Kitchenham, David Budgen, and Pearl Brereton. 2015. Evidence-Based Software Engineering, Empirical SE, Software Design. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
26. Barbara Kitchenham and Stuart Charters. 2007. Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Technical Report EBSE 2007-001. Keele University and Durham University Joint Report.
27. Barbara Kitchenham, O. Pearl Brereton, David Budgen, Mark Turner, John Bailey, and Stephen Linkman. 2009. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology 51, 1 (Jan. 2009), 7--15.
28. Francisco J. Lucas, Fernando Molina, and Ambrosio Toval. 2009. A systematic review of UML model consistency management. Information and Software Technology 51, 12 (Dec. 2009), 1631--1645.
29. Frank D. Macías-Escrivá, Rodolfo Haber, Raul Del Toro, and Vicente Hernandez. 2013. Self-adaptive systems: A survey of current approaches, research challenges and applications. Expert Systems with Applications 40, 18 (Dec. 2013), 7267--7279.
30. MathWorks. 2015. Stateflow^®: Model and simulate decision logic using state machines and flow charts. Retrieved from http://www.mathworks.com/products/stateflow.
31. Tom Mens and Pieter Van Gorp. 2006. A taxonomy of model transformation. Electronic Notes Theoretical Computer Science 152 (March 2006), 125--142.
32. Gero Mühl, Ludger Fiege, and Peter Pietzuch. 2006. Distributed Event-Based Systems. Springer, Secaucus, NJ.
33. OASIS. 2007. Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. Retrieved from http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/OS/wsbpel-v2.0-OS.html.
34. OMG. 2011a. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0.2. Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0.2/PDF.
35. OMG. 2011b. OMG Unified Modeling Language^TM (OMG UML), Superstructure, Version 2.4.1. Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1/Superstructure/PDF.
36. Nayan B. Ruparelia. 2010. Software development lifecycle models. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 35, 3 (May 2010), 8--13.
37. August-Wilhelm Scheer and Markus Nüttgens. 2000. ARIS architecture and reference models for business process management. In Business Process Management, Models, Techniques, and Empirical Studies. Springer, London, UK, 376--389.
38. Ian Sommerville, Dave Cliff, Radu Calinescu, Justin Keen, Tim Kelly, Marta Kwiatkowska, John Mcdermid, and Richard Paige. 2012. Large-scale complex IT systems. Communications of the ACM 55, 7 (July 2012), 71--77.
39. George Spanoudakis and Andrea Zisman. 2001. Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. World Scientific, Singapore, Chapter Inconsistency management in software engineering: Survey and open research issues, 329--380.
40. Thomas Stahl and Markus Völter. 2006. Model-Driven Software Development: Technology, Engineering, Management. John Wiley 8 Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
41. Muhammad Usman, Aamer Nadeem, Tai-hoon Kim, and Eun-suk Cho. 2008. A survey of consistency checking techniques for UML models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Software Engineering and Its Applications (ASEA). IEEE, 57--62.
42. Wil M. P. van der Aalst. 2013. Business process management: A comprehensive survey. ISRN Software Engineering 2013 (2013), 1--37.
43. Ragnhild Van der Straeten. 2005. Inconsistency Management in Model-Driven Engineering. Ph.D. Dissertation. Vrije University Brussel, Dept. of Computer Science.
44. Axel van Lamsweerde, Emmanual Letier, and Robert Darimont. 1998. Managing conflicts in goal-driven requirements engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 24, 11 (Nov. 1998), 908--926.
45. He Zhang, Muhammad Ali-Babar, and Paolo Tell. 2011. Identifying relevant studies in software engineering. Information and Software Technology 53, 6 (2011), 625--637.

Index Terms

• General and reference

  • Cross-computing tools and techniques

    • Design

    • Validation

    • Verification

  • Document types

    • Surveys and overviews

• Software and its engineering

  • Software organization and properties

    • Software functional properties

      • Correctness

        • Consistency

      • Formal methods