Taxonomy of Inconsistency Patterns in Multi-View Modelling
Case `ABB09-1`

Source: AbborsTL2009
Categories: C4 (primary); C6 (secondary)
Domain: model-based testing in telecommunications
Views: requirements model (SysML); UML system models; QML/Qtronic test specifications; test reports
Artefacts: requirement elements and links; traced UML elements; propagated QML requirement tags; generated tests; failed-test back-traces
Quotes: "Ultimately, since requirements are traced to model elements, it facilitates the identification of which functionalities of SUT are not in sync with the model, and hence with the requirements."; "Traceability of requirements can help in depicting missing tests, i.e. when critical requirements are not traced to any tests."
Summary: Some critical requirements may end up uncovered because they are not traced through the requirements-model-specification-test chain to any generated test.; Cause: trace links must be propagated across several modelling and testing steps; the paper notes that requirements change over the lifecycle, trace upkeep becomes tedious, and only requirements attached to state-machine transitions are currently propagated to Qtronic.; As a result, there are missing tests and incomplete requirement coverage; failed tests can be back-traced to linked model elements; omissions and requirement misinterpretations surface early in modelling.

Taxonomy Categories

Code	Label	As primary	As secondary
C1	Structural mismatch	13	7
C2	Interface contract mismatch	4	5
C3	Behavioural contradiction	3	6
C4	Requirement satisfaction gap	7	1
C5	Terminology divergence	3	3
C6	Traceability disruption	7	6
C7	Temporal skew	3	9

The page is maintained by Dr. Vadim Zaytsev a.k.a. @grammarware. Last updated: March 2026.