English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Mature verification and monitoring approaches, such as complex event processing and model checking, can be applied for checking compliance specifications at design time and runtime. Little is known about the understandability of the different formal and technical languages associated with these approaches. This uncertainty regarding understandability might be a major obstacle for the broad practical adoption of those techniques. This article reports a controlled experiment with 215 participants on the understandability of modeling compliance specifications in representative modeling languages, namely linear temporal logic (LTL), the complex event processing-based event processing language (EPL) and property specification patterns (PSP). The formalizations in PSP were overall more correct. That is, the pattern-based approach provides a higher level of understandability than EPL and LTL. More advanced users, however, seemingly are able to cope equally well with PSP and EPL in modeling compliance specifications.

software and systems modeling

Modeling compliance specifications in linear temporal logic, event processing language and property specification patterns: a controlled experiment on understandability