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

From: Steve Tockey < >
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 05:51:02 +0000

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: systemsafety <systemsafety-bounces_at_xxxxxx on behalf of Robert Schaefer <rps_at_xxxxxx Date: Friday, February 26, 2016 4:47 AM
Cc: "systemsafety_at_xxxxxx <systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Modelling and coding guidelines: "Unambiguous Graphical Representation"

Has anyone here worked with or have an opinion of Harelšs Statecharts?



The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx

The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Sat Feb 27 2016 - 06:51:12 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Apr 25 2019 - 00:17:07 CEST