[SystemSafety] Modelling and coding guidelines: "Unambiguous Graphical Representation"
Steve.Tockey at construx.com
Sat Feb 27 06:51:02 CET 2016
I've worked with Harel state charts, because they are essentially imported
into UML. To be honest, there's a lot that I don't really like about them.
Plain, simple finite automata (basic state-event-transition-action) is
entirely sufficient for my purposes. Everything that Harel state charts
add is, IMHO, unnecessary.
As well, I found this to be an interesting paper:
M. von der Beek. A Comparision of Statechart Variants. In W.-P. de Roever
H. Langmaack and J. Vytopil, editors, Formal Techniques in Real-Time and
Fault-Tolerant Systems , number 863 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
pages 128148. Springer Verlag, September 1994.
The article talks about something like 17 different dimensions of
ambiguity in state charts.
From: systemsafety <systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
on behalf of Robert Schaefer <rps at haystack.mit.edu>
Date: Friday, February 26, 2016 4:47 AM
Cc: "systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de"
<systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Modelling and coding guidelines:
"Unambiguous Graphical Representation"
Has anyone here worked with or have an opinion of Harel¹s Statecharts?
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
More information about the systemsafety