Abstract

A system s behavior is typically specified through models such as state diagrams that describe how the system should behave. According to researchers, it is not clear what a state actually represents regarding the system to be modeled. Standards do not provide adequate definitions of or sufficient guidance on the use of states. Studies show these inconsistencies can lead to poor or incomplete specifications, which in turn could result in project delays or increase the cost of the system design. This paper aims to establish a precise definition of the notion of states and state machines, a goal motivated by system modelers (e.g., requirement engineers) need to understand key concepts and vocabulary such as states and state machine, which are major behavioral modeling tools (e.g., in UML). State is the main notion of a state machine in which events drive state changes. This raises questions about the nature of these state-related notations. The semantics of these concepts is based on a new modeling methodology called the thinging machine applied to a number of examples of existing models. The thinging machine semantics is founded on five elementary actions that divide the static model into changes/states upon which events are defined.

Highlights

  • Abstraction is one of the most important tools used in computer science (Lewis and Lacher, 2016)

  • We examine the semantics of the state machine in terms of Thinging Machine (TM) modeling

  • This paper aims to establish a precise definition of the notion of state and state machines

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Abstraction is one of the most important tools used in computer science (Lewis and Lacher, 2016). State machines (abstract model consisting of states, input and mapping of input to states) typically specify how a system should behave These notions are essential ingredients in engineering systems e.g., the (Defence Materiel Organisation, 2011) Development Guide requires the identification of all of the applicable states for the solution-classes (Olver and Ryan, 2014). According to (Olver and Ryan, 2014), the various methodologies for specifying states do not provide a consistent message or framework of what constitutes a state They emphasized, “The wide variation of definitions [of system states] demonstrates that no consistent structure exists.”. The knowledge and the use of state machines in industry are half-hearted and accompanied by several misunderstandings due to lack of a sound theoretical basis. (Italics added)

Aim
E Create
E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E9 E3
A Traffic Light Control Re-modeled
15 Create
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.