[SystemSafety] Modelling and coding guidelines: "Unambiguous Graphical Representation"

[Steve Tockey]

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.


-- steve





-----Original Message-----
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