Content deleted Content added
m Copy Edit |
m spelling and grammer |
||
Line 17:
Both single and integrated (composite) behavior tree forms are important in applying behavior trees in [[systems engineering|systems]] and [[software engineering]].
* '''Requirement behavior trees (RBT):''' Initially, individual requirement behavior trees are constructed to capture all behavioral fragments from each natural language requirement through a rigorous translation process that preserves both intent and vocabulary. The translation process can uncover a range of defects in original [[natural language]] requirements.
* '''Integrated behavior trees (IBT):''' Because a set of requirements imply the integrated behavior of a system, all the individual requirement behavior trees can be composed to construct an integrated behavior tree that provides a single holistic view of the emergent integrated behavior of the system. This enables the construction of the system's integrated behavior from its requirements.<ref name = "winters">Winter, K. 2007. [http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:100586/Formalising_behaviour_trees_with_csp.pdf Formalising Behaviour Trees with CSP]</ref> An analogy to help describe this process is the transition from a randomly arranged set of [[jigsaw puzzle]] pieces to putting each of the pieces in its appropriate place. When this happens, each piece of information is placed in its intended context and their collective emergent properties become clear.
Line 101:
[[Model checking|Model-checking]] has often been applied to system models to check that hazardous states can’t be reached during normal operation of the system.<ref name = "probabilistic07">Grunske, L., Colvin, R., Winter, K. Probabilistic Model-Checking Support for FMEA Quantitative Evaluation of Systems. QEST 2007. Fourth International Conference on the Quantitative Evaluation of Systems, 17-19 Sept. 2007 pp. 119–128</ref> It is possible to combine model-checking with behavior trees to provide automated support for [[failure mode and effects analysis]] (FMEA).<ref name = "automatedFailEffect05" /> The advantage of using behavior trees for this purpose is that they allow the [[formal method]] aspects of the approach to be hidden from non-expert users.
==== Requirement
The ideal sought when responding to a change in the [[functional requirements]] for a system is that it can be quickly determined:
* where to make the change,
Line 161:
An important part of this work with industry has involved applying the analysis part of the method to six large-scale defense projects for [[Raytheon]] Australia. They see the method as "a key risk mitigation strategy, of use in both solution development and as a means of advising the customer on problems with acquisition documentation".<ref name = "boston08" /><ref>McNicholas, D., (Raytheon Australia), 2007. [http://www.behaviorengineering.org/images/publications/dromey2/be-industry-benefits.doc Behavior Engineering Industry Benefits]{{Dead link|date=November 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> An outcome of these industry trials has been the joint development<ref name="raytheonAustJoint">Raytheon Australia, 2008. [http://www.raytheon.com.au/Files/Behavior%20Trees.pdf Understanding grows on Behavior Trees] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090915050633/http://www.raytheon.com.au/Files/Behavior%20Trees.pdf |date=15 September 2009 }}</ref> with Raytheon Australia of an industry-strength tool to support the analysis, editing and display of large integrated sets of requirements.<ref name="RaytheonAswec08">Phillips, V., (Raytheon Australia), [http://www.behaviorengineering.org/images/publications/dromey2/bese_master_v2.ppt "Implementing a Behavior Tree Analysis Tool Using Eclipse Development Frameworks"]{{Dead link|date=November 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}, Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC’08), Perth, March 2008</ref> More extensive details of industry findings can be found on the Behavior Engineering website.<ref name = "BEWebsite">Behavior Engineering. [http://www.behaviorengineering.org/ Behavior Engineering website] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090301170621/http://www.behaviorengineering.org/ |date=1 March 2009 }}</ref>
Dr. Terry Stevenson (chief technical officer, Raytheon Australia), Mr. Jim Boston (senior project manager, Raytheon Australia), Mr. Adrian Pitman from the [[Defence Materiel Organisation|Australian
<ref>For further details see:
| |||