## Publication announcement: survey on requirements techniques, formal and non-formal

There is a new paper out, several years in the making:

The Role of Formalism in System RequirementsJean-Michel Bruel, Sophie Ebersold, Florian Galinier, Manuel Mazzara, Alexander Naumchev, Bertrand Meyer

Computing Surveys(ACM), vol. 54, no. 5, June 2021, pages 1-36

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3448975

Preprint available here.

The authors are from the Schaffhausen Institute of Technology in Switzerland, the University of Toulouse in France and Innopolis University in Russia. We make up a cross-institutional (and unofficial) research group which has for several years now been working on improving the state of software requirements, with both an engineering perspective and an interest in taking advantage of formal methods.

The article follows this combined formal-informal approach by reviewing the principal formal methods in requirements but also taking into consideration non-formal ones — including techniques widely used in industry, such as DOORS — and studying how they can be used in a more systematic way. It uses a significant example (a “Landing Gear System” or LGS for aircraft) to compare them and includes extensive tables comparing the approaches along a number of systematic criteria.

Here is the abstract:

*A major determinant of the quality of software systems is the quality of their requirements, which should be both understandable and precise. Most requirements are written in natural language, which is good for understandability but lacks precision.*

*To make requirements precise, researchers have for years advocated the use of mathematics-based notations and methods, known as “formal.” Many exist, differing in their style, scope, and applicability.*

*The present survey discusses some of the main formal approaches and compares them to informal methods.The analysis uses a set of nine complementary criteria, such as level of abstraction, tool availability, and traceability support. It classifies the approaches into five categories based on their principal style for specifying requirements: natural-language, semi-formal, automata/graphs, mathematical, and seamless (programming-language-based). It includes examples from all of these categories, altogether 21 different approaches, including for example SysML, Relax, Eiffel, Event-B, and Alloy.*

*The review discusses a number of open questions, including seamlessness, the role of tools and education, and how to make industrial applications benefit more from the contributions of formal approaches.*

For me, of course, this work is the continuation of a long-running interest in requirements and specifications and how to express them using the tools of mathematics, starting with a 1985 paper, still being cited today, with a strikingly similar title: *On Formalism in Specifications*.

*Trivia*: the “response to referees” (there were no fewer than eight of them!) after the first review took up 85 pages. Maybe not for the Guinness Book, but definitely a personal record. (And an opportunity to thank the referees for detailed comments that considerably helped shape the final form of the paper.)

*Correction* (20 July 2021): I just noted that I had forgotten to list myself among the authors! Not a sign of modesty (I don’t have any), more of absent-mindedness. Now corrected.