Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Verification, Validation, and Accreditation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Verification and Validation in Systems Engineering

Abstract

There exist many definitions for the terms verification and validation , depending on the group concerned or the domain of application. In the SE world, the most widely used definitions of these terms are provided by the Defense Modeling and Simulation Organization (DMSO) [67, 168]. On the one hand, verification is defined as “the process of determining that a model implementation and its associated data accurately represent the developer’s conceptual description and specifications” [67]. On the other hand, validation is defined as “the process of determining the degree to which a model and its associated data provide an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the model’s intended use” [67].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www-omega.imag.fr/

  2. 2.

    http://www.fortify.com/security-resources/rats.jsp

  3. 3.

    http://pmd.sourceforge.net/

References

  1. S. Balsamo and M. Marzolla. Performance Evaluation of UML Software Architectures with Multiclass Queueing Network Models. In the Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP), pages 37–42, New York, USA, 2005. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. E. Beato, M. Barrio-Solrzano, and C. E. Cuesta. UML Automatic Verification Tool (TABU). In SAVCBS 2004 Specification and Verification of Component-Based Systems, 12th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, Newport Beach, California, USA. Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  3. A. Bennett and A. J. Field. Performance Engineering with the UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time: a Case Study. In the Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunications Systems (MASCOTS), Volendam, The Netherlands, pages 67–75, October 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  4. S. Bensalem, V. Ganesh, Y. Lakhnech, C. Mu noz, S. Owre, H. Rueß, J. Rushby, V. Rusu, H. Saïdi, N. Shankar, E. Singerman, and A. Tiwari. An Overview of SAL. In C. Michael Holloway, editor, the Proceedings of the Fifth NASA Langley Formal Methods Workshop (LFM), pages 187–196, Hampton, VA, June 2000. NASA Langley Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  5. B. S. Blanchard and W. J. Fabrycky. Systems Engineering and Analysis. International Series in Industrial and Systems Engineering. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  6. G. Bolch, S. Greiner, H. de Meer, and K. S. Trivedi. Queueing Networks and Markov Chains: Modeling and Performance Evaluation with Computer Science Applications. Wiley, New York, NY, 2006.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. A. Bondavalli, M. Dal Cin, G. Huszerl, K. Kosmidis, D. Latella, I. Majzik, M. Massink, and I. Mura. High-Level Integrated Design Environment for Dependability, Deliverable 2: Transformations. Report on the specification of analysis and transformation techniques, ESPRIT, December 1998. ESPRIT Project 27493.

    Google Scholar 

  8. A. Bondavalli, A. Fantechi, D. Latella, and L. Simoncini. Design Validation of Embedded Dependable Systems. IEEE Micro, 21(5):52–62, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. A. Bondavalli, D. Latella, M. Dal Cin, and A. Pataricza. High-Level Integrated Design Environment for Dependability (HIDE). In WORDS ’99: Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Object-Oriented Real-Time Dependable Systems, page 87, Washington, DC, USA, 1999. IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  10. M. Bozga, J. C. Fernandez, L. Ghirvu, S. Graf, J. P. Krimm, and L. Mounier. IF: An Intermediate Representation and Validation Environment for Timed Asynchronous Systems. In Wing J. M., Woodcock J. and Davies J., editors, World Congress on Formal Methods in the Development of Computing Systems, Toulouse, France. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1708, pages 307–327, Springer Berlin, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Campos and J. Merseguer. On the Integration of UML and Petri Nets in Software Development. In the Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Applications and Theory of Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency (ICATPN), June 26–30, volume 4024 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 19–36. Springer, Berlin, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  12. C. Canevet, S. Gilmore, J. Hillston, L. Kloul, and P. Stevens. Analysing UML 2.0 Activity Diagrams in the Software Performance Engineering Process. In the Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Software and Performance, pages 74–78, Redwood Shores, CA, USA, January 2004. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. C. Canevet, S. Gilmore, J. Hillston, M. Prowse, and P. Stevens. Performance Modelling with the Unified Modelling Language and Stochastic Process Algebras. IEE Proceedings: Computers and Digital Techniques, 150(2):107–120, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. E. Carneiro, P. Maciel, G. Callou, E. Tavares, and B. Nogueira. Mapping SysML State Machine Diagram to Time Petri Net for Analysis and Verification of Embedded Real-Time Systems with Energy Constraints. In the Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Electronics and Micro-electronics (ENICS’08), pages 1–6, Washington, DC, USA, 2008. IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  15. M. V. Cengarle and A. Knapp. UML 2.0 Interactions: Semantics and Refinement. In 3rd International Workshop on Critical Systems Development with UML (CSDUML ’04, Proceedings), pages 85–99, München. Technische Universität München, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  16. A. Cimatti, E. Clarke, E. Giunchiglia, F. Giunchiglia, M. Pistore, M. Roveri, R. Sebastiani, and A. Tacchella. NuSMV Version 2: An OpenSource Tool for Symbolic Model Checking. In the Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV), volume 2404 of LNCS, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2002. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  17. A. Cimatti, E. Clarke, F. Giunchiglia, and M. Roveri. NuSMV: A New Symbolic Model Checker. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 2:2000, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  18. E. M. Clarke and E. A. Emerson. Design and Synthesis of Synchronization Skeletons Using Branching Time Temporal Logic. In 25 Years of Model Checking, volume 5000 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 196–215. Springer, Berlin, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  19. CNN. Unmanned European Rocket Explodes on First Flight. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9606/04/rocket.explode/, 1996. Last visited: January 2007.

  20. O. Constant, W. Monin, and S. Graf. A Model Transformation Tool for Performance Simulation of Complex UML Models. In Companion of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 923–924, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. D.A Cook and J.M. Skinner. How to Perform Credible Verification, Validation, and Accreditation for Modeling and Simulation. In Special Systems & Software Technology conference Issue, CrossTalk, The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, vol. 18(5) May 2005. Software Technology Support Center (STSC), U.S. Air Force.

    Google Scholar 

  22. V. Cortellessa and R. Mirandola. Deriving a Queueing Network-Based Performance Model from UML Diagrams. In the Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP), pages 58–70, New York, NY, USA, 2000. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. V. Cortellessa, P. Pierini, R. Spalazzese, and A. Vianale. MOSES: Modeling Software and Platform Architecture in UML 2 for Simulation-Based Performance Analysis. In the Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Quality of Software-Architectures, pages 86–102, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  24. P. Cousot, R. Cousot, J. Feret, and X. Rival L. Mauborgne, A. Miné. The ASTRéE Static Analyzer. http://www.astree.ens.fr/. Last visited: May 2010.

  25. Coverity. Coverity prevent static analysis. http://www.coverity.com/products/coverity-prevent.html. Last visited: May 2010.

  26. M. L. Crane and J. Dingel. On the Semantics of UML State Machines: Categorization and Comparison. Technical Report 2005-501, School of Computing, Queen’s University, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  27. G. Csertan, G. Huszerl, I. Majzik, Z. Pap, A. Pataricza, and D. Varro. VIATRA: Visual Automated Transformations for Formal Verification and Validation of UML Models. In ASE 2002: 17th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Edinburgh, UK, September 23–27, 2002, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Defense Modeling and Simulation Office. Verification and Validation Techniques. http://vva.dmso.mil/Ref_Docs/VVTechniques/VVtechniques-pr.pdf, August 2001. Published as a Recommended Practices Guide (RPG).

  29. V. Del Bianco, L. Lavazza, and M. Mauri. Model Checking UML Specifications of Real-Time Software. In the Eighth IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, Greenbelt, Maryland, 2–4 December, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Department of Defense. Instruction 5000.61: DoD Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Verification, Validation and Accreditation (VV&A), May 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  31. C. A. Ellis and G. J. Nutt. Modeling and Enactment of Workflow Systems. In the Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets, Chicago, Illinois, USA, pages 1–16. 1993. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  32. G. Engels, C. Soltenborn, and H. Wehrheim. Analysis of UML Activities Using Dynamic Meta Modeling. In M. M. Bonsangue and E. B. Johnsen, editors, the Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems (FMOODS), volume 4468 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 76–90. Springer, New York, NY 2007.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. R. Eshuis. Semantics and Verification of UML Activity Diagrams for Workflow Modelling. PhD thesis, University of Twente, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  34. R. Eshuis. Symbolic Model Checking of UML Activity Diagrams. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 15(1):1–38, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. R. Eshuis and R. Wieringa. Tool Support for Verifying UML Activity Diagrams. IEEE Transactions Software Engineering, 30(7):437–447, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. H. Fecher, M. Kyas, and J. Schönborn. Semantic Issues in UML 2.0 State Machines. Technical Report 0507, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Fortify. Fortify Source Code Analyzer (SCA) in Development. http://www.fortify.com/products/detect/in_development.jsp. Last visited: May 2010.

  38. S. Gallotti, C. Ghezzi, R. Mirandola, and G. Tamburrelli. Quality Prediction of Service Compositions through Probabilistic Model Checking. In the Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Quality of Software-Architectures (QoSA’08), pages 119–134, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  39. V. Garousi, L. C. Briand, and Y. Labiche. Control Flow Analysis of UML 2.0 Sequence Diagrams. In Model Driven Architecture - Foundations and Applications, First European Conference, ECMDA-FA 2005, Nuremberg, Germany, November 7–10, 2005, Proceedings, volume 3748 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 160–174. Springer, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  40. S. Gnesi and F. Mazzanti. Mu-UCTL: A Temporal Logic for UML Statecharts. Technical report, ISTI, http://www.pst.ifi.lmu.de/projekte/agile/papers/2004-TR-68.pdf, 2004.

  41. S. Gnesi and F. Mazzanti. On the Fly Model Checking of Communicating UML State Machines. In IEE INSPEC, editor, SERA 2004 conference, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  42. S. Gnesi and F. Mazzanti. A Model Checking Verification Environment for UML Statecharts. In XLIII AICA Annual Conference, University of Udine – AICA 2005, October 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  43. J. O. Grady. System Validation and Verification. Systems engineering series. CRC, Boca Raton FL, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  44. GRaphs for Object-Oriented VErification (GROOVE). http://groove.sourceforge.net/groove-index.html. Last Visited: January 2010.

  45. R. Grosu and S. A. Smolka. Safety-Liveness Semantics for UML 2.0 Sequence Diagrams. In the Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Applications of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD’05), Saint Malo, France, June 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  46. N. Guelfi and A. Mammar. A Formal Semantics of Timed Activity Diagrams and its PROMELA Translation. In the 12th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC’05) Taiwan, pages 283–290. IEEE Computer Society, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  47. P. J. Haas. Stochastic Petri Nets: Modelling, Stability, Simulation. Operations Research and Financial Engineering. Springer, New York, NY, 2002.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Hewlett-Packard Development Company L.P. HP Code Advisor Version C.02.15-User’s Guide. http://h21007.www2.hp.com/portal/download/files/unprot/codeadvisor/Cadvise_UG.pdf. Last visited: May 2010.

  49. J. Hillston. Process Algebras for Quantitative Analysis. In the Proceedings of the 20th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pages 239–248, Washington, DC, USA, 2005. IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  50. C. A. R. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Communications of the ACM, 26(1):100–106, 1983.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  51. H.P. Hoffmann. UML 2.0-Based Systems Engineering Using a Model-Driven Development Approach. CROSSTALK The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, November 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  52. G.J. Holzmann. The model checker spin. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 23(5):279–295, May 1997. Special issue on Formal Methods in Software Practice.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  53. Z. Hu and S. M. Shatz. Mapping UML Diagrams to a Petri Net Notation for System Simulation. In the Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE’04), Banff, Alberta, Canada, pages 213–219, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  54. E. Huang, R. Ramamurthy, and L. F. McGinnis. System and Simulation Modeling Using SysML. In the Proceedings of the 39th conference on Winter simulation (WSC’07), pages 796–803, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2007. IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. IEEE Std 1012-2004, IEEE Standard for Software Verification and Validation, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  56. INCOSE. Overview of the ISO System. http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/introduction/index.html. Last visited: December 2006.

  57. M. Janeba. The Pentium Problem. http://www.willamette.edu/ mjaneba/pentprob.html, 1995. Last visited: January 2007.

  58. Y. Jarraya, A. Soeanu, M. Debbabi, and F. Hassaïne. Automatic Verification and Performance Analysis of Time-Constrained SysML Activity Diagrams. In the Proceedings of the 14th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems (ECBS), Tucson, AZ, USA, March 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  59. K. Jensen. Coloured Petri Nets. Basic Concepts, Analysis Methods and Practical Use, volume 1 of Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. Springer, New York, NY 1997.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  60. P. S. Kaliappan, H. Koenig, and V. K. Kaliappan. Designing and Verifying Communication Protocols Using Model Driven Architecture and SPIN Model Checker. In the Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (CSSE’08), pages 227–230, Washington, DC, USA, 2008. IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  61. S. K. Kim and D. A Carrington. A Formal V&V Framework for UML Models Based on Model Transformation Techniques. In 2nd MoDeVa Workshop – Model Design and validation, Inria, France, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  62. P. J. B. King and R. Pooley. Derivation of Petri Net Performance Models from UML Specifications of Communications Software. In the Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Performance Evaluation: Modelling Techniques and Tools (TOOLS), pages 262–276, London, UK, 2000. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  63. A. Kirshin, D. Dotan, and A. Hartman. A UML Simulator Based on a Generic Model Execution Engine. Models in Software Engineering, pages 324–326, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Klocwork. Klocwork Truepath. http://www.klocwork.com/products/insight/klocwork-truepath/. Last visited: May 2010.

  65. A. Knapp, S. Merz, and C. Rauh. Model Checking - Timed UML State Machines and Collaborations. In FTRTFT ’02: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Formal Techniques in Real-Time and Fault-Tolerant Systems, Oldenburg, Germany, pages 395–414. Springer, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  66. K. Korenblat and C. Priami. Extraction of PI-calculus specifications from UML sequence and state diagrams. Technical Report DIT-03-007, Informatica e Telecomunicazioni, University of Trento, Trento, Italy, February 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  67. D. Kroening. Application Specific Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving. In Autexier S. and Mantel H., editors, Proceedings of the Verification Workshop (VERIFY’02), Copenhagen, Denmark, pages 5–15, July 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  68. D. Latella, I. Majzik, and M. Massink. Automatic Verification of a Behavioural Subset of UML Statechart Diagrams Using the SPIN Model-Checker. Formal Aspects in Computing, 11(6):637–664, 1999.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  69. D. Latella, I. Majzik, and M. Massink. Towards a Formal Operational Semantics of UML Statechart Diagrams. In Proceedings of the IFIP TC6/WG6.1 Third International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems (FMOODS), page 465, Deventer, The Netherlands, The Netherlands, 1999. Kluwer, B.V.

    Google Scholar 

  70. W. Li and S. Henry. Maintenance Metrics for the Object Oriented Paradigm. In First International Software Metrics Symposium, pages 52–60, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  71. X. Li, Z. Liu, and J. He. A formal semantics of UML sequence diagrams. In Proc. of Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC’2004), 13–16 April 2004, Melbourne, Australia, 2004. IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  72. C. Lindemann, A. Thümmler, A. Klemm, M. Lohmann, and O. P. Waldhorst. Performance Analysis of Time-Enhanced UML Diagrams Based on Stochastic Processes. In the Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP), pages 25–34, New York, NY, USA, 2002. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  73. J.P. López-Grao, J. Merseguer, and J. Campos. Performance Engineering Based on UML and SPN: A Software Performance Tool. In the Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Symposium on Computer and Information Sciences, pages 405–409. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, October 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Maude system. http://maude.cs.uiuc.edu/. Last Visited: January 2010.

  75. S. Mazzini, D. Latella, and D. Viva. PRIDE: An Integrated Software Development Environment for Dependable Systems. In DASIA 2004: Data Systems in Aerospace, Nice, France. ESA Publications Division, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  76. K. L. McMillan. The SMV System. Technical Report CMU-CS-92-131, Carnegie Mellon University, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  77. K. L. McMillan. Getting Started with SMV. Technical Report, Cadence Berkeley Labs, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  78. S. Mehta, S. Ahmed, S. Al-Ashari, Dennis Chen, Dev Chen, S. Cokmez, P. Desai, R. Eltejaein, P. Fu, J. Gee, T. Granvold, A. Iyer, K. Lin, G. Maturana, D. McConn, H. Mohammed, J. Moudgal, S. Nori, N. Parveen, G. Peterson, M. Splain, and T. Yu. Verification of the Ultrasparc Microprocessor. In 40th IEEE Computer Society International Conference (COMPCON’95), San Francisco, California, USA, pages 452–461, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  79. J. Merseguer and J. Campos. Software Performance Modelling Using UML and Petri Nets. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2965:265–289, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. E. Mikk, Y. Lakhnech, M. Siegel, and G. J. Holzmann. Implementing Statecharts in PROMELA/SPIN. In WIFT ’98: Proceedings of the Second IEEE Workshop on Industrial Strength Formal Specification Techniques, page 90. IEEE Computer Society, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  81. D. Miller. Higher-Order Logic Programming. In the Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP), Jerusalem, Israel, page 784, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  82. R. Milner. Communicating and Mobile Systems: The Pi-Calculus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  83. F. Mokhati, P. Gagnon, and M. Badri. Verifying UML Diagrams with Model Checking: A Rewriting Logic Based Approach. In The Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Quality Software, (QSIC’07), Portland, Oregon, USA, pages 356–362, October 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Nasa. Software Quality Metrics for Object-Oriented System Environments. Technical Report SATC-TR-95-1001, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, June 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Navy Modeling and Simulation Management Office. Modeling and Simulation Verification, Validation, and Accreditation Implementation Handbook. Technical Report, Department of the Navy, US, March 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  86. H.R. Nielson, F. Nielson, and C. Hankin. Principles of Program Analysis. Springer, New York, NY 1999.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  87. Northrop Grumman Corp. and NASA ARC. V&V of Advanced Systems at NASA, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  88. I. Ober, S. Graf, and D. Lesens. A Case Study in UML Model-Based Validation: The Ariane-5 Launcher Software. In FMOODS’06, volume 4037 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  89. I. Ober, S. Graf, and I. Ober. Validating Timed UML Models by Simulation and Verification. In Workshop on Specification and Validation of UML models for Real Time and Embedded Systems (SVERTS 2003), A Satellite Event of UML 2003, San Francisco, October 2003, October 2003. Downloadable Through http://www- verimag.imag.fr/EVENTS/SVERTS/.

  90. Object Management Group. XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) Specification, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Object Management Group. A UML Profile for MARTE: Modeling and Analysis of Real-Time Embedded Systems, Beta 2, June 2008. OMG Adopted Specification.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Optimyth. Checking. http://www.optimyth.com/en/products/checking-qa.html. Last Visited: May 2010.

  93. C. J. J. Paredis and T. Johnson. Using OMG’s SysML to Support Simulation. In the Proceedings of the 40th Conference on Winter Simulation (WSC’08 ), pages 2350–2352. Winter Simulation Conference, Miami, Florida, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  94. D. C. Petriu and H. Shen. Applying the UML Performance Profile: Graph Grammar-Based Derivation of LQN Models from UML Specifications. In the Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Performance Evaluation, Modelling Techniques and Tools (TOOLS), pages 159–177, London, UK, 2002. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  95. R. Pooley. Using UML to Derive Stochastic Process Algebra Models. In Davies and Bradley, editors, the Proceedings of the Fifteenth Performance Engineering Workshop, Department of Computer Science, The University of Bristol, UK, pages 23–33, July 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  96. W. Reisig. Petri Nets, An Introduction. Springer, Berlin, 1985.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  97. W. H. Sanders and J. F. Meyer. Stochastic Activity Networks: Formal Definitions and Concepts. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 315–343. Springer, Berlin, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  98. M. Sano and T. Hikita. Dynamic Semantic Checking for UML Models in the IIOSS System. In the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Future Software Technology (ISFST), Xian, China, October 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  99. T. Schäfer, A. Knapp, and S. Merz. Model Checking UML State Machines and Collaborations. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 55(3):13, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. J. Schumann. Automated Theorem Proving in High-Quality Software Design. In Hölldobler S., editor, Intellectics and Computational Logic, Applied Logic Series, vol. 19, pages 295–312, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Scientific Toolworks. Understand: Source code analysis & metrics. http://www.scitools.com/index.php. Last Visited: May 2010.

  102. Semantic Designs Inc. The dms software reengineering toolkit. http://www.semdesigns.com/products/DMS/DMSToolkit.html. Last visited: May 2010.

  103. G. Smith. The Object-Z Specification Language. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA, 2000.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  104. SofCheck. Sofcheck inspector. http://www.sofcheck.com/products/inspector.html. Last Visited: May 2010.

  105. H. Störrle. Semantics of Interactions in UML 2.0. In Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Symposium on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments (HCC’03), Auckland, New Zealand, pages 129–136, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  106. N. Tabuchi, N. Sato, and H. Nakamura. Model-Driven Performance Analysis of UML Design Models Based on Stochastic Process Algebra. In the Proceedings of the First European Conference on Model Driven Architecture – Foundations and Applications (ECMDA-FA), volume 3748 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 41–58, 2005. Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Technical Board. Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities. Technical Report INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03, Version 3, International Council on Systems Engineering, June 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  108. The MathWorks Inc. PolySpace Embedded Software Verification. http://www.mathworks.com/products/polyspace/. Last visited: May 2010.

  109. M. Tribastone and S. Gilmore. Automatic Extraction of PEPA Performance Models from UML Activity Diagrams Annotated with the MARTE Profile. In the Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP), pages 67–78, New York, NY, 2008. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  110. M. Tribastone and S. Gilmore. Automatic Translation of UML Sequence Diagrams into PEPA Models. In the Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Quantitative Evaluation of Systems September 2008 (QEST), St Malo, France, pages 205–214. IEEE Press, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  111. J. Trowitzsch, A. Zimmermann, and G. Hommel. Towards Quantitative Analysis of Real-Time UML Using Stochastic Petri Nets. In the Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS), page 139.b, Washington, DC, USA, 2005. IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  112. G. C. Tugwell, J. D. Holt, C. J. Neill, and C. P. Jobling. Metrics for Full Systems Engineering Lifecycle Activities (MeFuSELA). In Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE 99), Brighton, UK, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  113. W. M. P. van der Aalst. The Application of Petri Nets to Workflow Management. Journal of Circuits, Systems, and Computers, 8(1):21–66, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. M. Y. Vardi. Branching vs. Linear Time: Final Showdown. In the Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), pages 1–22, London, UK, 2001. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  115. D. Verton. Software Failure Cited in August Blackout Investigation. http://www. computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/recovery/story/0,10801,87400,00.html, 2003. Last Visited: January 2007.

  116. A. Viehl, T. Schänwald, O. Bringmann, and W. Rosenstiel. Formal Performance Analysis and Simulation of UML/SysML Models for ESL Design. In DATE ’06: Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pages 242–247, Belgium, 2006. European Design and Automation Assoc.

    Google Scholar 

  117. V. Vitolins and A. Kalnins. Semantics of UML 2.0 Activity Diagram for Business Modeling by Means of Virtual Machine. In Proceedings of the Ninth IEEE International EDOC Enterprise Computing Conference (EDOC’05), Enschede, The Netherlands, pages 181–194, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  118. E. Wandeler, L. Thiele, M. Verhoef, and P. Lieverse. System Architecture Evaluation Using Modular Performance Analysis: A Case Study. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 8(6):649–667, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. R. Wang and C. H. Dagli. An Executable System Architecture Approach to Discrete Events System Modeling Using SysML in Conjunction with Colored Petri Net. In the Proceedings of the 2nd Annual IEEE Systems Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pages 1–8. IEEE, April 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  120. C. S. Wasson. System Analysis, Design, and Development: Concepts, Principles, and Practices. Wiley Series in Systems Engineering and Management. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  121. D. Xu, H. Miao, and N. Philbert. Model Checking UML Activity Diagrams in FDR. In the Proceedings of the ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science, pages 1035–1040, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2009. IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  122. J. A. Zachman. A Framework for Information Systems Architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26:276–292, 1987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. X. Zhan and H. Miao. An Approach to Formalizing the Semantics of UML Statecharts. In Conceptual Modeling – ER 2004, 23rd International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Shanghai, China, November 2004, Proceedings, pages 753–765, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Security Laboratory, Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science, Concordia Institute for Information Systems Engineering (CIISE), Concordia University, 1455, Boulevard de Maisonneuve West, EV 7-642, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8, Canada

    Dr. Mourad Debbabi, Dr. Yosr Jarraya & Andrei Soeanu

  2. Capabilities for Asymmetric and Radiological Defence and Simulation, Defence Research and Development Canada – Ottawa, 3701 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1A 0Z4

    Dr. Fawzi Hassaïne

  3. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science, Concordia University, 1455, Boulevard de Maisonneuve West, EV 13-173, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8, Canada

    Luay Alawneh

Authors
  1. Dr. Mourad Debbabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dr. Fawzi Hassaïne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dr. Yosr Jarraya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrei Soeanu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luay Alawneh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mourad Debbabi .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Debbabi, M., Hassaïne, F., Jarraya, Y., Soeanu, A., Alawneh, L. (2010). Verification, Validation, and Accreditation. In: Verification and Validation in Systems Engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15228-3_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15228-3_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-15227-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-15228-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation